ReSPA e-government Analysis

1

E-Government Analysis: From E- to Open

Government

ReSPA is a joint Initiative of European Union and the Western Balkan countries working towards fostering and strengthening the regional cooperation in the field of public administration among its Member States. It seeks to offer excellent innovative and creative training events, networking activities, capacity building and consulting services to ensure that the shared values of respect, tolerance, collaboration and integration are reaffirmed and implemented throughout the public administrations in the region. LEGAL NOTICE Neither the Regional School of Public Administration nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in the present publication. The Regional School of Public Administration is not responsible for the external web sites referred to in the present publication. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of Regional School of Public Administration on the subject. COPYRIGHT © Regional School of Public Administration, 2015 This publication is the property of ReSPA. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited CONTACT Regional School of Public Administration Branelovica P.O. Box 31, 81410 Danilovgrad, Montenegro Telephone: +382 (0)20 817 200 Internet: www.respaweb.eu E-mail: respa-info@respaweb.eu

2

Authors

International authors

Jeremy Millard, international lead expert Louise Thomasen, international review expert

National authors

Albania

Fisnik Kruja Bosnia and Herzegovina

Fuad Curcic Kosovo*

Driart Elshani Macedonia

Goce Armenski Montenegro

Ana Drakic Serbia

Bojan Cvetkovic

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.

3

Foreword Over the last year ReSPA has, together with its E-Government Network members and respective regional and international experts, identified the need to follow up the comparative analysis on a regional level devoted to e-government in the Western Balkan region published in 2013 with an update that builds upon this baseline and further extends it to examine how the basics of e- government can lead to building open governments. The idea evolved directly from the need to support the current process and trends in Europe to learn about e-government and open government, especially about the potentials, weaknesses/bottlenecks and future development in the region. In the light of EU cooperation, the structure of the study reflects European good practice and moves the focus on to also look at good governance and the public administration reform process. Therefore, in this new regional comparative study, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo* are in focus. Much effort has been invested to highlight success, examine the lessons learnt and identify both past and current challenges faced by both e-government and open government in the Western Balkans. The most important features of this regional comparative study are the examination of the state of the art of e-government in the region in 2015, to examine progress since 2012, and to in addition to look at progress towards open government. Particular focus is on processes and outcomes, including the provision of information, service delivery, and the interaction between government, citizens, businesses, civil society and private companies. The new issues examined include open government data, cloud computing, Public Private Partnerships and Public Civil, Partnerships.

The findings of this regional comparative study elaborate individual country developments in the Western Balkans, from the policy and strategic level in specific e-government and open government institutional settings and implementations, and in particular relate these to the broader public administration reform process. In addition, the study investigates the best modalities to improve public administration productivity, efficiency and effectiveness by providing a number of recommendations, and it attempts to address the challenges of the Western Balkan region as a whole. As a modality for transformation, the study offers guiding principles for regional project initiatives, and highlights the areas most needed to improve capacity building in public administrations. Suggestions for further horizontal and vertical networking within institutions, countries and the whole region through e-government and open government, as well as with the other related networks supported by ReSPA are highlighted. With this second regional comparative study, ReSPA is not only aiming to further support the life-long learning cycle but also to highlight the cross-cutting nature of e-government and open government. It is also necessary to involve a wide spectrum of target audiences in its every day implementation, and more importantly to show that the issues examined here are intrinsically connected with changes in the public sector more widely. It is also clear from the main conclusions that the importance of e-government and open government are being acknowledged across the Western Balkans, and that more and more human and financial resources are being allocated with benefits already detected in all segments of the public administration institutional set up.

Suad Music, ReSPA Director

4

Contents

November 2015

Foreword ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 7

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 9

1.1 Introduction and background ............................................................................................... 9

1.2 Overall conclusions ........................................................................................................... 10

1.2.1 Alignment with SIGMA Priorities............................................................................................ 10

1.2.2 From E-Government to Open government ............................................................................ 10

1.3 Overall recommendations .................................................................................................. 12

1.3.1 Recommendations for countries ............................................................................................ 12

1.3.2 Summary of recommendations for external assistance to ReSPA countries ........................ 15

1.3.3 Summary of recommendations for ReSPA’s role and future support ................................... 16

1.3.4 Methods for delivering the recommendations ....................................................................... 17

1.3.5 General recommendations .................................................................................................... 18

2 Introduction and purpose of the analysis............................................................................. 19

2.1 The Regional School of Public Administration in the Western Balkans .............................. 19

2.2 Purpose, rationale and contents of this analysis report ...................................................... 19

2.3 Methodology of survey and analysis .................................................................................. 21

3 Global and European e-government and open government trends.................................... 22

3.1 Global and European developments .................................................................................. 22

3.2 The United Nations ............................................................................................................ 22

3.3 The European Union ......................................................................................................... 27

3.4 The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ........................... 30

3.5 The World Bank ................................................................................................................. 32

3.6 Open government Partnership ........................................................................................... 32

4 Comparative analysis of e- and open government survey results ..................................... 33

4.1 Overview of survey responses and analysis undertaken.................................................... 33

4.2 E-government and open government policies, including legal and institutional frameworks

(status and progress since 2012)....................................................................................... 33

5

4.2.1 E-government policies ........................................................................................................... 33

4.2.2 Open government policies ..................................................................................................... 34

4.3 Interoperability and base registries (status and progress since 2012) ................................ 36

4.3.1 Interoperability policy and framework .................................................................................... 36

4.3.2 Base registries ....................................................................................................................... 37

4.4 E-government user interface (status and progress since 2012) ......................................... 40

4.5 User empowerment and centricity (status and progress since 2012) ................................. 43

4.6 Transparency and participation (status and progress since 2012) ..................................... 48

4.7 Open government data, open data, standardization, protection of personal and sensitive data (status and progress since 2012) ............................................................................... 49

4.7.1 Data standardisation and data quality ................................................................................... 53

4.7.2 Provisions for protecting user data ........................................................................................ 53

4.8 Cloud computing: status .................................................................................................... 54

4.9 Public Private Partnerships and Public Civil Partnerships: status ...................................... 57 5 Alignment with SIGMA Priorities and PAR Principles ......................................................... 60

5.1 Relevance of e-government and open government to the SIGMA priories......................... 60

5.2 Applicability of current status e-government and open government in the ReSPA countries

to the SIGMA priorities....................................................................................................... 60

6 Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................................... 67

6.1 From e-government to open government........................................................................... 67

6.1.1 Developments in open government....................................................................................... 67

6.1.2 Mapping progress from e-government to open government ................................................. 69

6.2 Conclusions and recommendations for countries............................................................... 72

6.2.1 Albania ................................................................................................................................... 72

6.2.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina ....................................................................................................... 73

6.2.3 Kosovo* ................................................................................................................................. 75

6.2.4 Macedonia ............................................................................................................................. 76

6.2.5 Montenegro............................................................................................................................ 78

6.2.6 Serbia .................................................................................................................................... 79

6.3 Recommendations regarding the role of external assistance ............................................. 81

6.3.1 Strategic and legislative support............................................................................................ 82

6.3.2 Technical support .................................................................................................................. 82

6.3.3 Support related to cloud services .......................................................................................... 83

6.3.4 Support related to open data ................................................................................................. 83

6

6.3.5 Organisational and capacity building ..................................................................................... 84

6.3.6 Financial support and special assistance .............................................................................. 84 6.4 Recommendations for ReSPA’s role and future support .................................................... 84

6.4.1 Technical support .................................................................................................................. 85

6.4.2 Support related to cloud services .......................................................................................... 85

6.4.3 Support related to open data ................................................................................................. 86

6.4.4 Organisational and capacity building ..................................................................................... 87

6.4.5 Methods for delivering the recommendations ....................................................................... 88

6.4.6 General recommendations .................................................................................................... 89

7

Acronyms

The following is an alphabetical list of acronyms and their meanings used in the report.

ADISA Albanian Delivery Integrated Service Agency ALCIRT Albanian Computer Incident Response Team API Application Protocol Interface BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina BRA Business Registers Agency CDT Center for Democratic Transition, Montenegro CEF Connecting Europe Facility CPR Civil Procedure Rules, Serbia CRM Customer Relationship Management CSO Civil Society Organisation DAE Digital Agenda Europe DI Data Integration DocM Decision Of Council of Ministers, Albania EC European Commission EIF European Interoperability Framework eDMS electronic document management system EPI E-Participation Index (United Nations) ENER National Register of Electronic Regulations (FYROM) ERDMS Electronic Records and Documents Management System EU European Union G2B Government to Business G2C Government to Citizen G2G Government to Government GG Government Gateway GIF Government Interoperability Framework GSB Government Service Bus GovNet Government Network HCI Human Capital Index (United Nations) ID Identity ICT Information and Communication Technology IOP Interoperability IS Information System IT Information Technology LAMP Land Administration and Management Project LSP Large Scale Pilot MIAP Ministry of Innovation and Public Administration, Albania MIDT Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications, Montenegro MISA Ministry of information society and administration, Macedonia

8

MITIK Minister of State for Innovation and ICT Technology of Information and Communication, Albania

MoJ Ministry of Justice MoPA Ministry of Public Administration MPALSG Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government, Serbia NAIS National Agency on Information Society, Albania NIF National Interoperability Framework OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OGD Open government Data OGP Open government Partnership OSI Online Service Index (United Nations) PA Public Administration PAR Public Administration Reform PM Prime Minister PKI Public Key Infrastructure PPP Public-Private-Partnership PCP Public-Civil-Partnership PSI Public Sector Information ReSPA Regional School of Public Administration in the Western Balkans SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SLA Service Level Agreement SNERR Single National Electronic Register of Regulation, Albania SSO Single Sign On TTI Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (United Nations) UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme WB World Bank W3C World Wide Web Consortium standards ZIS Integral Information Health System

ReSPA e-government Analysis

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction and background

During 2013 ReSPA, together with its E-Government Network members and respective regional and international experts, conducted a comparative study “ReSPA Regional Comparative E- Government Study” on a regional level devoted to e-government in the Western Balkan region. In the autumn of 2015, a group of international and Western Balkan national e-government experts prepared this follow-up comparative ReSPA e-government analysis report “Form E- to Open Government”. This report is thus partly a practical follow-up with an update on status and progress of the previous 2013 comparative study, and partly a survey of the situation in terms of cases and challenges the Western Balkan ReSPA countries are faced with: public-private and public-civil partnerships, cloud computing, open government and open data, ethics and integrity issues, amongst others.

Since the 2013 study it has been recognised that e-government – the digitalisation of government – is not a single isolated issue. At the present time, governments are continuously working towards digitizing and reforming their processes as a means to better serve the public. E-government is transcending all areas of government and open government is one of the major global trends.

The report “From E- to Open Government” is conducted though rigourous survey mapping of both the status and progress since the 2012 survey, as well as including new additional themes. It analyses the relevant global and European open government context and good practices relevant for the Western Balkans, and conducts a comparative analysis of survey results. It also takes account and examines the applicability of how e-government and open government can contribute towards implementing the so-called SIGMA Priorities derived from the joint OECD-EU report “The principles of public administration”, which sets out principles that cover key horizontal layers of the governance systems that determine the overall performance and reform of public administrations. The report concludes with an open government synthesis, and open government policy and recommendations.

The report has been prepared by five national experts from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia, supported by two international experts. It is based on desk research using a comprehensive questionnaire and checklist, plus selected interviews with key persons in each country. In addition to this main report, a separate annex publication contains country reports from each of the five ReSPA countries and Kosovo* outlining summary descriptions, explanations and recommendations for the future.

9

10

1.2 Overall conclusions

1.2.1 Alignment with SIGMA Priorities

The analysis in this report leads to a number of conclusions regarding the contribution that e- government and open government can make to each of the six SIGMA priorities as part of the Public Administration Reform (PAR) process:

Priority 1: Strategic framework of public administration reform: the provision of up-to-date, accurate information as evidence upon which to base strategic decisions, the ability to interrogate data and undertake ex ante and ex post impact assessments of different policy options, and to undertake widespread consultations and awareness raising, including increasing trust in the process.

Priority 2: Policy development and coordination: as for Priority 1, plus mechanisms, tools, data for content and knowledge management and decision-making at policy level.

Priority 3: Public service and human resources management: mechanisms, tools, data for content and knowledge management, decision-making on public service and human resources level, service monitoring and feedback, and human resources monitoring and feedback.

Priority 4: Accountability: transparency, publishing data and information, and tracing and assessing processes and decision-making for future improvements and refinements.

Priority 5: Service delivery: interoperability and base registries to enable well functioning services, both online and traditional as well as both push and pull, portals, user-centricity and empowerment, and service co-creation and refinement.

Priority 6: Public financial management: allocating, managing, tracking, monitoring, auditing, open data (based on legal framework), and public procurement.

1.2.2 From E-Government to Open government

The analysis in this report has demonstrated very clearly that e-government as such is a necessary basis for developing open government, given the very close coherence between e-government and open government development in each country showing that the leading e-government countries and are also the leading open government countries. Many of the models of e-government focus on development stages, starting with digitising the back office and then putting front-office services online, before being able in technical, organisational, competence and political terms to progress towards an open government framework built on using ICT to become transparent, participative and collaborative.

11

Albania

Albania is performing very well on both e-government and open government, particularly regarding transparency and participation, although it needs to address collaboration issues as here it is falling well behind the regional leaders.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina is performing less well than the regional average on both e-government and open government. The country does relatively well on transparency, but much less well on collaboration and poorly on participation, both of which need attention as here it is falling well behind the regional leaders.

Kosovo*

Kosovo* is the weakest of the six participants in both e-government and open government, but is of course a very late developer and has numerous political and institutional challenges not faced in the same way by the other participants. Kosovo* needs to address issues across the board although it has made a promising start in a number of areas such as collaboration and transparency.

Macedonia

Macedonia is performing less well than the regional average on e-government, having slipped somewhat behind the other countries on e-government in the past few years, but its earlier achievements in e-government have perhaps contributed to an exceptional performance as a leader on transparency and a good performance on participation in the context of open government.

Montenegro

Montenegro is the clear regional leader in both e-government and open government, doing extremely well on participation and very well on collaboration compared with the average. However, the country should give more attention to transparency where it has only an average score and lags the rest of the region with the exception of Kosovo*.

Serbia

Serbia performs at about the average level on both e-government and open government, but does very well on transparency and participation, although it is being held seriously back by its lack of any real efforts regarding collaboration. The country has slipped somewhat in the past few years, but has the know-how and resources to pick up again and become a regional leader.

12

1.3 Overall recommendations

1.3.1 Recommendations for countries

Albania

The steps made in Albania in e-government and open government have significantly improved service delivery and provided more e-services for citizens and business through the interoperability platform and the unique service delivery portal www.e-albania.al, ensuring accessibility on a user- oriented platform.

The interoperability system interconnecting government systems that are present and/or envisioned in the Digital Agenda 2015-2020 action plan, also supports the efficiency of public service and resources management through e-government platforms. For example projects like ERDMS (Electronic Records and Document Management System), that is envisioned to be implemented in all line ministries and institutions by the end of 2017, will provide significant support in document exchange as well as speed up and improve policy development and coordination by line institutions.

Through the action plan of the Digital Agenda 2015-2020, improvements are foreseen also regarding the expansion of the government’s financial system. This means that reporting state budget expenses to ensure transparency and public scrutiny over public finances has been enabled since 2013 by the Ministry of Finance which publishes state budget expenditures daily, and also as part of the OGP initiative where important steps regarding open government are foreseen, also in the action plan 2014-2016. The 2014 Law for Information and Public Consultation also ensures very good mechanisms for the accountability of state administration bodies, including liability and transparency, through enabling a transparency programme for each institution in the government, and enabling open data for public access.

The legislative framework for both e-government and open government in Albania is up to date as are the necessary technical systems and interoperability, and the gateway to citizen and business (www.e-albania.al) is being enriched with new e-services.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

The limited open government initiatives are, however, supporting an increase of government transparency and collaboration which is enhancing public service integrity and changing the perception of the government in the eyes of the citizens. These initiatives aim to improve access to information through a request to change the laws on free access to information. This is also supported by the fact that the Ministry of Justice represents Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Open Government Partnership. Service delivery is being improved through the launch of an internal e- signature system that is in use. Interoperability initiatives for establishing common standards are going ahead which will allow the government to provide better service delivery and establish technical conditions for the central e-government portal.

13

Kosovo*

Given that Kosovo* is at an early stage in implementing important public administration reforms, e- government and open government can significantly support the SIGMA recommendations for the strategic framework of public administration reform, policy development and co-ordination, public service and human resource management, accountability, service delivery and public financial management. Public institutions should open data related to public administration and other data regarding institutional processes. Government should do this with CSOs through a PPP/PCP initiative. Initially the datasets regarding the public administration could be identified and then this data could be made open. This would contribute significantly to a monitoring and reporting system for the entire PAR process.

In the short term Kosovo* should revise the law for access to public information, which should be in compliance with OGP policy, The new legislation should leverage the potential of open government data and make available the requested information in machine readable format. An open data portal should be created that would foster the accountability of public institutions. This should be done with the help of civil society through a possible PCP/PPP initiative. Public financial institutions, as well as all governmental institutions, should open their data regarding public administration, procurement, land property and other data in line with the OGP strategy. Kosovo* should also create a monitoring system based on open government data in order to track the work and the performance of public institutions.

In the medium term Kosovo* should include feedback loops in the open government data portal, and should also create an open reporting system for the implementation of the government programme and especially its strategic plans for European Integration. This should be done by creating an inclusive co-ordination system with a whole-of-government approach. Kosovo* should include open government data in the PAR process and should use open data for administrative reforms and for building effective public services.

Macedonia

E-government and open government support the integration of existing services, for example by the integration of ENER with the e-session system, as well as building the national portal for e- services which could play a bigger supporting role in achieving many additional impacts. These could include in the area of e-justice solutions, given that the required technology, the necessary platforms and adequate knowledge for e-solutions do exist, so it is the will and competence to deploy them that requires focus.

The more institutions practicing e-government, the more the preconditions for open government will be created. On the other hand, e-government will not fulfil its goals if measures are only taken on the supply side. Initiatives are also needed on the demand side, especially for breaking consumer resistance to using e-services and gaining their trust regarding security. It is also important not to focus exclusively on the technology itself, since it is only the enabler of e- government and not the only important aspect that needs to be addressed.

14

A substantial number of important and key regulations have been adopted or aligned with the priorities of e-government and open government, a large number of vital e-services have been developed and launched, useful datasets have been publicly opened and attractive initiatives have been started. Further efforts are needed in applying and practicing a strategic approach in the context of strong central coordination in order to ensure necessary synergy across all initiatives.

There is no existing data on the measurement of allocated resources (costs) nor on benefits from the many activities that have been finished and those that are in progress. This suggests that there is a need for evaluation methodologies and practices that can be used mainly for strategic purposes and the estimation of financial costs.

Montenegro

It is clear that Montenegro has achieved a great deal in terms technical preconditions and legislative framework for e-government, which enables the government to offer a variety of traditional services online as well as to function much more efficiently and effectively. A lot has also been done to publish data (although in pdf format) from a variety of public bodies and to enable civil society, businesses and citizens to participate in decision making. However, e-services for citizens and businesses and systems which have been introduced within public bodies to increase citizen participation are both underused. Hence, the first shift that needs to happen is to place the focus on increasing the utilisation of what has already been created, undertake regular customer surveys in order to improve existing e-services and also expand their number based on what is really needed and commonly used. At the same time, it is necessary to make changes so that e- participation, reports by citizens and e-petition options for public participation and accountability are used much more. Another important development, prior to shifting to open government, is achieving full interoperability, full digitalisation and the online availability of basic public registries. Only then will it be possible to see a genuine shift towards open government. Some of the first steps, such as regulating open government data usage and designing the open government portal, have already been taken. Given Montenegro's good track record in aligning the legislative framework but slowness in its implementation, the approach towards open government needs to be vigilant and thoughtful. Otherwise, there will again be good policies and technical preconditions in place that will not mean much to the ordinary citizen.

Serbia

One of the main recommendations to Serbia, in addition to aligning better with the SIGMA and PAR requirements, is the need for a single e-government organisation with horizontal jurisdiction over all government entities and all aspects of e-government (planning, implementation, operations). Monitoring and publishing online (in real time) the results of policies should take place and their performance tracked in relation to the baseline (state before the policy was enacted). A set of online indicators (in near real time) should be published and monitored, showing the alignment between policies, financial costs and objectives as well as the quality and accessibility of public services. A unified or standardized document management and case management system

15

should also be established for all governmental organisations that has knowledge management functions. Project performance measurement tools (simple sets of online forms that lead to the consolidated report) should be developed by the State Audit Institution and made available to the public. Knowledge management should be introduced and available to the government stakeholders regarding good managerial standards and human resource management practices.

The e-government portal should be updated so that it is fully citizen-oriented; enables collaboration with users, citizens or businesses on content and services creation; offers online transactional electronic services; and enables online transparent budget planning and spending for the public to fully participate. Multiple channels (secure online forms, mobile, voice, video, chat, etc.) should also be better developed. Similarly, a CRM based eParticipation (Call/Contact Center) should be established and include new channels to users other than Internet (mobile, voice, video, chat, etc.), and a cloud-based government e-payment service should be made available. A single national OGD portal should be established to enable the public to access and use OGD. As part of this, all registries should publish public APIs that would allow controlled and secure reuse of registry data without copying and duplication.

The Public Procurement Portal should also be updated so that users can create various reports, comparisons and analyses; can export data in OGD machine readable formats; and can have timely access to the CPR work and decisions. The PPO (Public Procurement Office) should develop and introduce standard sector-specialised technical specifications.

1.3.2 Summary of recommendations for external assistance to ReSPA countries

Strategic and legislative support

• Long-term e-government, open government and information society strategies

• Assistance with legal framework.

Technical support

• Strategic approach to interoperability and base registers

• ‘One-stop-shop’, ‘once-only’ and ‘digital by default’ strategies

• E-government portal, user-centered and multi-channel strategies and implementation

• Digital security and data protection strategies and implementation

• Open source and modular software solutions

• Support for transparency, trust and participation strategies and implementation.

16

Support for cloud services

• Developing cloud solutions, best practices and cost-benefit analyses

• Transition from legacy to cloud systems

• Online fully transactional cloud-based services

Support for open data

• Open data strategies and implementation

• Open data portals and support for demand-side and usage

Organisation and capacity building

• Strategies and implementation for PPPs/PCPs and collaboration

• Platforms for collaborative work

• Strategies and implementation for a safe Internet

Financial support and special assistance

• Continue to provide finance and fiscal expertise, e.g. for programmes

• Multiple twinning programmes aligned with EU strategies and good practice.

1.3.3 Summary of recommendations for ReSPA’s role and future support

Techical support -- topics

• Interoperability and base registries, IT personnel and W3C

• Security & eID

• E-services and awareness raising

• Mobile (m-) government and multi-channel

Cloud services -- topics

• From legacy to cloud systems

• Private, public and hybrid clouds

• Costs and benefits, business case

17

• Collaboration with PPPs/PCPs and SLA issues

Open data -- topics

• OGD philosophy, strategy and implementation

• Legal, ownership, licensing, standards and quality issues

• OGD for both socio-economic development and for transparency and accountability

• Developing the demand side and awareness raising

• Collaboration and PPPs/PCPs

Organisational and capacity building -- topics

• Governing and organising e-government and open government

• Cross government collaboration and coordination

• Measuring and monitoring frameworks

• Leadership and management

• Civil servant capacity and roles

• Collaboration and PPPs/PCPs: strategies, tendering, selecting, contracting, monitoring,

management, costs-benefit analysis and business case

• Business model development

• Public participation and engagement

1.3.4 Methods for delivering the recommendations

The above recommendations can be delivered and realised using a variety of methods, and especially:

• Workshops, training, train the trainers, training networks, summer/seasonal schools, in-

country training, mobility programmes and learning materials

• Regional Centre of Excellence Network as a laboratory for innovation and knowledge transfer.

• Greater focus on sub-national entities, such as cities, municipalities and rural areas, given

that most e-government is experienced by citizens and businesses at these localities.

18

• ‘Boot-camps’ tailored to specific groups (such as politicians, high level administrators, middle managers, etc.), as one (maximum two) day very intensive interactive training events designed to explain the fundamental principles of the subject with, ideally, hands-on examples and activities to help participants practice the concepts they learn.

• Exchanges and visits based on good practices and regional examples; also with EU

countries and with specific countries which have made good progress in particular areas.

• ReSPA focused support to individual countries depending on a negotiated programme,

given that each has quite specific requirements.

• Regional PA Excellence Awards.

• Regional cooperation and direct partnering.

• Regional comparative studies.

• Greater use of webinars, Skype-for-Business, conference and video calls if technically

robust. 1.3.5 General recommendations

• Early in 2016, align the work of the E-Government Expert Working Group with the

European E-Government Action Plan due to be agreed by RU Member States, supported by the European Commission, for the period 2016-2010, which will itself be aligned with the Europe 2020 Strategy.

• Continue close collaboration with ReSPA’s Expert Working Groups on Public-Private-

Partnerships, One-Stop-Shop, Ethics and Integrity, as well as other relevant activities including Public Administration Reform.

19

2 Introduction and purpose of the analysis

2.1 The Regional School of Public Administration in the Western Balkans

The Regional School of Public Administration (ReSPA) is a unique historical endeavour to support the creation of accountable, effective and professional public administration systems for the Western Balkans on their way to EU accession. The initial objectives behind the ReSPA initiative were to boost regional co-operation in the field of public administration, and strengthen administrative capacity and the development of human resources in line with the principles of the European Administrative Space. The idea of an institution where civil servants from the six original ReSPA member countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia1, Montenegro, the Republic of Serbia2, plus Kosovo3), can receive training was originally put forward at the EU-Western Balkans summit held on 21 June 2003 in Thessaloniki. From 2014 the Republic of Croatia no longer participates directly in the work of ReSPA’s E- Government Network upon its accession to the European Union.

In this context in 2015, ReSPA isdentified a need to produce a follow-up analysis to its 2013 regional study on the Comparative Overview of the Provision of E-Services to citizens in the Western Balkan region. This new study is entitled “From E-Government to Open government in the Western Balkan Countries: ReSPA regional comparative e-government analysis”.

2.2 Purpose, rationale and contents of this analysis report

During 2013 ReSPA, together with its E-Government Network members and respective regional and international experts, conducted a comparative study “ReSPA Regional Comparative E- Government Study”4 on a regional level devoted to e-government in the Western Balkan region. The idea evolved directly from the need to support the current process and trends in Europe to learn about e-government, especially about its potentials, weaknesses/bottlenecks and future development in the region.

In the autumn of 2015, a group of international and Western Balkan national e-government experts have prepared this follow-up comparative ReSPA e-government analysis report “Form E- to Open Government”. This comparative analysis is partly a practical follow-up with an update on the status and progress of the previous 2013 comparative study, and partly a survey of the current situation in terms of cases and challenges the Western Balkan ReSPA countries are faced with: public-private

1 Hereinafter referred to as Macedonia, 2 Hereinafter referred to as Serbia. 3 Hereinafter referred to as Kosovo*. *This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and it is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence. 4 http://respaweb.eu/download/doc/Regional+comparative+eGov+study+- +web.pdf/dfab3d5a78e0d10e9a6a80827e36a277.pdf

20

and public-civil partnerships, cloud computing, open government and open data, ethics and integrity issues, amongst others.

Since the 2013 study, it has been recognised that e-government – the digitalisation of government – is not a single isolated issue. At the present time, governments are continuously working towards digitizing and reforming their processes as a means to better serve the public. E-government transcends all areas of government. As such, the ReSPA E-Government Working Group is increasingly joining and co-operating with other ReSPA thematic groups. In 2014 a joint study was conducted with the Ethics & Integrity network on the “Abuse of Information Technology (IT) for Corruption”5, and in 2015 study visits took place with the General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA) Working Group to Vienna to investigate Austria’s implementation of the One-Stop-Shop concept, and to Helsinki to look at whole-of-government and open government concepts in Finland.

The report “From E- to Open government” is conducted though rigourous survey mapping of both the status and of progress since 2012, as well as including the new additional themes. It analyses the relevant global and European open government context and good practices relevant for the Western Balkans, and conducts a comparative analysis of survey results within the following areas:

• E-government and open government policies, including legal and institutional frameworks

(status and progress since 2012)

• Interoperability and base registries (status and progress since 2012)

• E-government user interface (status and progress since 2012)

• User empowerment and centricity (status and progress since 2012)

• Transparency and participation (status and progress since 2012)

• Open government data (OGD), standardization, open data, protection of personal and

sensitive data (status and progress since 2012)

• Cloud computing: status

• PPPs and PPCs: status

• Ethics and integrity issues

The report concludes with an open government synthesis and detailed recommendations for future development.

5

http://respaweb.eu/download/doc/Abuse+of+Information+Technology+%28IT%29+for+Corruption.pdf/d867df158b864e8c 843c15e5eece5016.pdf

21

To further align the analysis in the study with ReSPA ongoing activities and priorities in the region, the analysis “From E- to Open government” also takes account and examines the applicability of how e-government and open government can contribute towards implementing the so-called SIGMA priorities derived from the joint OECD-EU report “The principles of public administration”6. This sets out principles that cover key horizontal layers of the governance systems that determine the overall performance of public administrations. Public Administration Reform (PAR) is a central pillar of the EU enlargement process, together with the rule of law and economic governance.

2.3 Methodology of survey and analysis

The report has been prepared by five national experts from Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia, supported by two international experts. It is based on desk research using a comprehensive questionnaire and checklist, plus selected interviews with key persons in each country. In addition to this main report, a separate annex publication contains detailed country reports from each of the five ReSPA countries and Kosovo* outlining summary descriptions, explanations and recommendations for the future.

6 http://www.sigmaweb.org/publications/Principles-Public-Administration-Overview-Nov2014.pdf

22

3 Global and European e-government and open government trends

3.1 Global and European developments

E-government is the use by governments and public administrations of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in their efforts to achieve three interlinked goals. First, to become more efficient in their own operations. Second, to provide more effective services for citizens, businesses and other users. Third, as an essential tool in ‘good governance’ which according to the United Nations7 encompasses eight main characteristics about how public administrations should function: efficiency, effectiveness, equity, transparency, accountability, responsiveness, participation and inclusion, as well as also requiring political stability, the rule of law, domestic revenue mobilization and good state capacity to be successful. Since the advent of the Internet about fifteen years ago - and in the last five years the widespread use of social media and mobile telephones - the impact and importance of e-government has increased dramatically across the world, as has the investments made in it. One of the main issues is how public administrations can attempt to reform themselves and leverage the technologies to achieve the above impacts. The reform and strengthening of public administration is the key to the better exploitation of e-government and to increase the positive impacts it can have on both short- and long-term economic and social development.

3.2 The United Nations

The United Nations together with its 193 Member States agreed in September 2015 a new agenda for sustainable development to be achieved by 2030 through seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)8, each with a number of specific targets. For the first time, two of these goals emphasise the need to build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels and to strengthen the means of implementation, including through the better use of technology, in order to achieve sustainable development through good governance. The next UN E-Government Survey, due to be published in 2016, will be focused on the role of e-government to achieve these Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The United Nations in its survey of e-government published in June 20149 highlights a number of important global issues and trends: online service delivery; whole-of-government and collaborative government; e-participation; mobile and other channels for inclusive multi-channel service delivery;

7 United Nations (2013) ”Governance, Public Administration and Information Technology for Post-2015 Development”, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management, United Nations, New York: http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/Governance_PA_Report.pdf 8 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/post-2015-development-agenda.html 9 United Nations (2014) “E-Government Survey 2014: e-government for the future we want”, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York: http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2014- Survey/E-Gov_Complete_Survey-2014.pdf

23

bridging the digital divide; the usage perspective; and open government data. Based on the analyses provided by this survey compared to earlier surveys, the first e-government efforts were concerned mainly with installing infrastructure and providing information about the government and its activities. Although these remain important today, the emphasis has shifted in most countries to good service design and delivery, as well as to participation and transparency. There is also now the emergence for the first time of systemic thinking about ‘e-governance’ as an overall concept linking together different public entities through the so-called ‘whole-of-government’ and ‘collaborative governance’ approaches. This implies that users (citizens and businesses) experience a single authority in their dealings with government, rather than having to understand the variable structures and rules of different entities, as part of a comprehensive user/citizen- centric, rather than government-centric, process. To achieve whole-of-government, common standards including interoperability between its various parts (in technical, semantic, organizational and legal/political aspects) are essential. Other important global trends include seeing e- government as an essential tool for establishing transparent legal and decision-making processes and for combatting corruption, for example in the areas of tax collection and public procurement, as well as budget-making and spending at different levels.

The United Nations E-Government 2014 survey also makes it clear that e-government both stimulates infrastructural and human development and is stimulated by them, and that it can strengthen national capabilities and enhance governments’ overall performance. E-government can also promote transparency, reduce corruption and assist the ‘greening’ of the public sector, as well as facilitate effective disaster management, promote economic growth and enhance social inclusion through equitable access to services. The UN has also undertaken a number of other relevant studies, most noticeably on e-government interoperability10 by addressing the challenge that all too often e-government progress is hindered by difficulties related to the patchwork of incompatible ICT solutions rather than flexible and reusable assets that would provide essential building blocks of services for citizens. Important issues covered included interoperability standards and architecture, and the need to develop a government interoperability framework (GIF).

The following tables and figures show the relatively performance of the Western Balkan ReSPA countries compared both with each other as well as with the global mean and the global top ten of the UN E-Government Survey 201411. This data is based on an overall E-Government Development Index (EGDI), presenting scores out of a maximum of 1.0000, which is itself composed of three equally weighted sub-indices: the Online Service Index (OSI), the Human Capital Index (HCI) and the Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII)12. Thus, two thirds of the

10 UNDP, United Nations Development Programme (2008) “E-Government Interoperability”, e-Primers for the Information Economy, Society and Polity, New York. 11 Please notice that the UN E-Government Survey does not include data for Kosovo*. 12 It should also be noted that the values of the index are not aboslutes but instead relative to the leading global country in a given year which is always allocated the value of 1.0000, so that a reduced value between two measurements does not necessaily imply an absolute reduction.

24

index is not directly related to e-government but, respectively, to human capital and telecommunications infrastructure, but these are considered so important for e-government development that they are included in the overall index.

Table 1 shows that Montenegro is the leading country in 2014, although it started in bottom position in 2008, so it’s overall e-government development has been very impressive. Next comes Serbia which has been the regional leader but dropped back, and then Albania followed by Macedonia and finally Bosnia and Herzegovina. All countries, apart from Montenegro, experienced reduced values between 2012 and 2014, but (as noted) this does not necessarily mean they reduced in absolute terms but that they reduced relative to the best performing countries globally, which can be seen by the values for the global top ten.

Table 1: E-Government Development Index: selected countries, 2008. 2010, 2012 and 2014 (Source United Nations (2014) “E-Government Survey 2014)

E-Government Development Index Country 2008 2010 2012 2014 Montenegro 0.4282 0.5101 0.6218 0.63455 Serbia 0.4828 0.4585 0.6312 0.54715 Albania 0.467 0.4519 0.5161 0.50455 Macedonia 0.4866 0.5261 0.5587 0.47198 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.4509 0.4698 0.5328 0.47069 Global mean 0.42679 0.41886 0.49078 0.47362 Global top ten 0.79202 0.77818 0.86459 0.88887

The OSI provides data that most directly measures e-government progress given that the HCI and TII focus instead on important enablers for e-government.

Table 2 shows how the OSI is made up of data on four stages of online services: 1) emerging information services where government websites basically provide information only: 2) enhanced information services where government websites deliver enhanced one-way or simple two-way e- communication between government and citizen; 3) transactional services where government websites engage in two-way communication with their citizens, including requesting and receiving inputs: and 4) connected services which change the way governments communicate with users by, for example, being proactive in requesting information and opinions from citizens using Web 2.0 and social media. Such services can also cut across different departments and ministries providing a whole-of-government interface for citizens through, for example, life event services. The distribution of data in

Table 2 shows that Montenegro is again the clear leader and is also well above the global mean. It is, however, closely followed by Albania which leads on three of the four stages, and does exceptionally well on stage 4, but lags seriously behind all other countries in the region on stage 2. Serbia again performs quite well, followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina and then Macedonia.

25

Table 2: E-Government Online Service Index divided by stages: selected countries 2014 (Source United Nations (2014) “E-Government Survey 2014)

Online Services Index by stages 2014 Country Stage 1:

Emerging inf. services (%)

Stage 2: Enhanced inf. services (%)

Stage 3: Transactional services (%)

Stage 4: Connected

services (%)

Total (%)

Montenegro 84 68 12 35 48 Albania 88 27 21 44 42 Serbia 72 52 12 18 37 BiH 56 41 7 12 28 Macedonia 50 34 5 15 25 Global mean 65 40 25 27 37 Global top ten 99 78 80 79 84

Figure 1: E-Government Online Service Index divided by stages: selected countries 2014 (Source United Nations (2014) “E-Government Survey 2014)

Table 3 presents the results of an additional measure, the E-Participation Index (EPI) which is a subset of the OSI indicators composed of three stages: 1) e-information by providing citizens with public information and access to information: 2) e-consultation by engaging citizens in contributions to and deliberation on public policies and services; and 3) e-decision-making by empowering citizens to co-design policy options and co-produce services. The EPI shows the ReSPA Member States in the same rank order as the OSI index, with Montenegro leading and the only country performing well on stage 3, followed again by Albania and Serbia with all three countries above the global average. Bosnia and Herzegovina follow and then Macedonia, repeating the pattern shown by the OSI.

26

Table 3: E-participation by stages: selected countries 2014 (Source United Nations (2014) “E- Government Survey 2014)

E-Participation utilisation by stages 2014 Country Stage 1:

E-information (%) Stage 2: E-consultation (%)

Stage 3: E-decision making (%)

Total (%)

Montenegro 74 41 22 53 Albania 85 23 0 48 Serbia 63 23 0 38 BiH 37 14 0 22 Macedonia 33 14 0 21. Global mean 56 25 7 36 Global top ten 94 83 69 86

Figure 2: E-participation by stages: selected countries 2014 (Source United Nations (2014) “E- Government Survey 2014)

Given the above UN data, which is well respected globally, Montenegro is the clear current leader amongst Western Balkan ReSPA countries, a place it has only achieved since 2012, emerging from the position of the least well performing country in 2008. This is also shown by comparison with the data presented in the ReSPA E-Government Survey from 201313. Both Albania and Serbia also perform well, and above the global mean with Albania often ahead in terms of specific e- government developments, whilst Serbia does better on the two e-government enablers of

13 RePA, Regional School of Public Administration (2013) ”ReSPA Regional Comparative e-government Study”, ReSPA, Danilovgrad, Montenegro.

27

telecommunications infrastructure and human capital. Both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia lag these three countries, with especially Macedonia falling behind over the last few years.

3.3 The European Union

Despite significant variations between countries, Europe is the leading e-government region globally.14 All countries have their own strategies and roadmaps but the vast majority also work within the European E-Government Action Plan 2011-2015, agreed between Member States and the European Commission.15 The plan specifies four priorities designed to implement four collective goals:

1. User empowerment: e-government services to empower citizens and businesses e.g.

increased access to public information, strengthened transparency and stakeholder involvement.

2. E-government to support the further construction of the digital single market: high quality e-

government services, mobility, creating synergies in e-government solutions, to reduce administrative burden, increase transparency and potentially generate costs savings.

3. E-government to enable efficiency and effectiveness, to reduce the administrative burden,

improve organizational and administrative processes, facilitate information sharing and simplify interaction with the European Commission.

4. Implementation through key enablers and the necessary legal and technical preconditions,

including interoperability of systems to exchange, process and correctly interpret information.

European e-government is also embedded within the wider European Union 2020 Strategy16 and the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE)17. The DAE includes strong political focus on interoperability and standards; trust and security; enhancing digital literacy, skills and inclusion; and ICT-enabled benefits for EU society. One of the key EU initiatives is the European Interoperability Framework (EIF)18 which defines interoperability as the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate). It is often used in a technical systems engineering sense, or alternatively in a broad sense, taking into account social, political, and organizational factors that impact

14 United Nations (2014) “E-Government Survey 2014: e-government for the future we want”, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York: http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2014- Survey/E-Gov_Complete_Survey-2014.pdf 15 European Commission (2010) “The European e-government Action Plan 2011-2015: harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable and innovative government”, COM(2010) 743 Final, Brussels 15.12.2010. 16 Europe 2020 Strategy http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm. 17 Digital Agenda Europe http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm 18 European Commission (2010) “European Interoperability Framework for European public services”, COM(2010) 744 Final, Brussels 16.12.2010.

28

system-to-system performance. The EIF provides the basis for most European countries’ efforts in this area and is essential in the design of the cross-border services currently being agreed and implemented at European level, such as the health card. The EIF covers four parts: legal and political interoperability, organisational interoperability, semantic interoperability, and technical interoperability.

A number of studies have also been published elucidating Europe’s interoperability strategies and the EIF. Misuraca,19 in addition to analyzing the three basic building blocks of technological, semantic and organizational interoperability, also focused on the overall public value created by interoperability systems in supporting ICT-enabled governance at the local level. Public value refers to the value created by government through services, policies, regulations and other actions. This results in the recognition of a number of value drivers in interoperable governance systems supported by ICT, such as performance, openness and inclusion. Criado,20 on the other hand, focuses more on the coordination and harmonization benefits of interoperability, particularly in the context of multi-level governance. In this context, the study also takes account of broader interoperability issues such as the political context, the need for legal interoperability and the business requirements of interoperability. The latter are defined by architecture guidelines and the data collection, exchange, dissemination and sharing attributes necessary.

Other relevant European initiatives which rely on or promote interoperability include the Large Scale Pilots (LSPs) that develop practical solutions tested in real government service cases across Europe in five main areas; e-ID, e-procurement, e-business, e-health and e-justice.21 Also of relevance are the Re-Use of Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive from 201222, which provides a framework for opening up government data, and so-called Open government Data (OGD) for use by other actors such as citizens, businesses and civil groups. Again, common interoperability and standards are absolutely necessary. There are two other recent significant initiatives foreseen under the 2015 E-Government Action Plan.23 First, the strong attention being paid to ICT-enabled public sector innovation, especially where this addresses pressing societal problems through so- called open and social innovation like the ageing society, greater demands for health care, increasing poverty, climate change and sustainability.24 Second, a focus on administrative burden reduction and benefits realization achieved through the integration of e-government tools; the smart use of the information that citizens and businesses have to provide to public authorities for the completion of administrative procedures; making electronic procedures the dominant channel

19 Misuraca G, Alfano G, Viscusi G (2011) “Interoperability challenges for ICT-enabled governance: towards a pan- European conceptual framework”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 6 (1), pp. 95-111, Universidad de Taica, Chile, 2011. 20 Criado J I (2012) “Interoperability of e-government for building intergovernmental integration in the European Union”, Social Science Computer Review, 30 (37), Sage Publications. 21 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/e-government 22 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm 23 European Commission (2010) “The European e-government Action Plan 2011-2015: harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable and innovative government”, COM(2010) 743 Final, Brussels 15.12.2010. 24 European Commission (2013) “A vision for public services”, prepared by DG CONNECT after an expert workshop and open public consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/vision-public-services.

29

for delivering e-government services; and the principle of the ‘once only’ registration of relevant data. The latter ensures that citizens and businesses supply certain standard information only once, because public administration offices take action to internally share this data, so that no additional burden falls on citizens and businesses.25

At the end of June 2015, the 12th European E-Government Benchmark Report for 2015 was published showing “that online public services in Europe are smart but could be smarter.”26Too many users are still asked to fill forms with information already available to the administration in more than half of the cases. Only 57% of public services are available to cross-border businesses and only 41% to other EU citizens across the border, whilst 73% of the public services websites do not have a mobile-friendly version. However, the report showed good progress in making online services available for various life events. Evaluating whether government services are available for the digital age, the report found that more services are available online for starting entrepreneurs, the unemployed / jobseekers and students, but that user experience remains insufficient. Building on the Study on E-Government and the Reduction of Administrative Burden27, the report also concluded that government services need to meet three challenges if they are to match rising customer expectations, they need to be:

1. mobile-friendly

2. open and transparent

3. personalised and simplified.

During the summer of 2015 and following on from the above developments, DG CONNECT of the European Commission began work on behalf of Member States on developing the outlines of the next E-Government Action Plan for 2016 to 2020, aligned with the Europe 2020 Strategy but also building on the 2011-2015 Action Plan with the aim to “go further and be more dynamic and flexible”.28

Collaboration, participation and transparency, as core principles of open government, will be among the priorities by promoting user-friendly digital services, helping to connect public administrations across Europe and facilitating the re-use of open data, open services and open processes. These open government principles should operate in an open governance framework in which citizens, businesses, civil society, social partners and other stakeholders play a key role. “Citizen involvement in the production of collaborative services” is a priority area, as is open data,

25 European Commission (2014) “Study on e-government and the reduction of administrative burden”, prepared for DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology. 26 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/eu-e-government-report-2015-shows-online-public-services-europe-are- smart-could-be-smarter. 27 European Commission (2014) “Study on e-government and the reduction of administrative burden”, prepared for DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology. 28 https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/opengov/news/open-data-and-collaborative-service-production-2-priorities-next- eu-egovernme (4 July 2015)

30

“as an untapped resource with a huge potential for building stronger, more interconnected societies”. The new Action Plan will also be a key part of the Digital Single Market Strategy of the EU29, and will be a mobiliser for actions paving the way towards the modernisation of public administrations and services in Europe. However, in order to be successful, the open government scheme needs to be supported by a strong ICT backbone, interoperability and a transformation towards re-usable, modular public services. Part of this will be facilitated by the CEF (Connecting Europe Facility)30 programme to create an “interconnected Europe”, by promoting broadband connectivity for all European households, by facilitating the interoperability of European public administrations and by providing Digital Services Infrastructures (DSIs)31. According to DG CONNECT, the idea is to build “a global ecosystem” as generic Building Blocks that can be re- used (for example with e-invoicing, e-signature, etc.), as well as interoperable online services for citizens, businesses and public administrations, with sector-specific DSIs, like e-procurement, better Internet for children, etc.”

3.4 The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is an international organization for mainly developed countries which acts as a think-tank and knowledge-broker of evidence-based policies on behalf of its members as well as a wider international audience. It is engaged in many relevant initiatives including public sector reform and modernization in relation to encouraging good collaboration across entities and different levels, as well as focusing on the ‘public good’ arising from standards and interoperability. OECD is also developing principles for good governance supported by ICT, such as trust in government, fairness, serving citizens, fiscal sustainability, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and transparency. According to the latest “Government at a Glance” report32 governments are also focusing on how to regain trust in strategic governance and the ability to think longer term. This means regardless of political vagaries and changes, and taking account of different contextual issues, so that strategies should recognise both institutional and historical differences as well as the fact that countries face many similar challenges and opportunities, many of which are also directly cross-border if not global, so they need to be addressed at regional or wider levels regardless of these differences. An important element of the OECD’s work, in collaboration with the EU, in the Public Administration Reform context is the development of the SIGMA principles of public administration prepared in November 2014. For further details, see chapter 5.

29 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/digital-single-market 30 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connecting-europe-facility 31

https://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDQQFjAAahUKEwiR5Mni8MfIAhVlEHIKH UFnBOA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fnewsroom%2Fdae%2Fdocument.cfm%3Fdoc_id%3D4634&usg=AFQj CNGbvldGAggOSfpOujkgajR88lt-xA&sig2=D8Em2TACchSFLRLc2W4I3A 32 OECD (2013) “Government at a Glance”, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, OECD Publishing.

31

A major feature of the OECD’s current activities is the digitization of the public sector which sees digital technology as an ‘equalizer’ between institutions, competencies, responsibilities and leadership; as well as human resources and capacities in relation to ICT-skilled staff. The focus is also on linking ICT investments to both monetary and non-monetary returns, as well as on integrated service delivery where the service interface with the user is just the tip of the iceberg given that this is enabled by a well-functioning back-office and collaboration between different government entities. Particular focus areas include ICT procurement and contracting, as well as interoperability and standards. In the front-office, maximizing the usage of e-government services is seen as very important33, and the OECD is also a strong promoter of governments releasing much of the data they posses into the public domain in easy to access machine-readable formats as OGD. Provided personal privacy and security are protected, this is seen both as a user right as the data is provided by citizens, businesses and wider society in the first place, as well as being important in creating economic and wider societal value if it is used, for example, to create new businesses and make governments more open and transparent. The OECD is also promoting emerging platforms such as mobile government (m-government) and social media, particularly as tools to re-create trust in government, innovate public services, make the public sector more efficient, and to tackle emergencies and disasters.

A major issue addressed by the OECD is the use of e-government to fight corruption through, for example, e-procurement and other digital tools. Corruption in the public sector hampers the efficiency of public services, undermines confidence in public institutions, and increases the cost of public transactions. In order to promote this agenda as well as the wider efficiency and effectiveness of the public sector, in September 2014 the OECD launched a number of principles for digital government strategies.34 These are based on recent developments that show that, although government was once seen purely as a provider, it is now also seen as a convener and enabler. E-government used to be seen as a silo separated from the rest of society but today it is necessary to see these and other elements as a part of a seamless whole. The new OECD principles are grouped into three main pillars concerned not with the technology per se but with how the technology can be used:

1. engaging citizens and opening up government to maintain public trust

2. adopting joined-up approaches to deliver public value

3. strengthening capacities to ensure a fair return on ICT investment.

The development of these principles is part of the wider OECD focus on public sector innovation which goes beyond the traditional notions of e-government but can rarely take place without ICT. Some of the objectives of public sector innovation include cost savings, improved service quality, increased user and employee satisfaction, and improved democratic value.

33 OECD (2009) “Rethinking e-Government Services: user-centerd approaches”, OECD, Paris, OECD Publishing. 34 http://www.oecd.org/gov/public-innovation/Recommendation-digital-government-strategies.pdf

32

3.5 The World Bank

The World Bank’s focus on e-government is part of its wider so-called e-transform and e- development work, concerned with providing support mainly to the emerging economies and developing countries in the form of technical advice and investment support for the design and roll out of e-government solutions and applications. This support focuses on “strategy, policy, regulatory and legal aspects, institutional frameworks, enterprise architecture and interoperability standards, shared infrastructure and services, training and change management, e-government applications and innovative funding arrangements including public-private partnerships.” 35

“The World Bank also provides support for project design, implementation and procurement of

innovative approaches leveraging ICT, e.g. mobile delivery of public services, cloud computing, and open data initiatives.” An important part of the World Bank’s work is to build the necessary institutional capability for developing e-government applications for improving government performance and accountability, particularly in the delivery of public services. The success of e- government is seen as relying on reforming back office processes just as much as updating front office service delivery channels. According to the World Bank “sharing data across legacy systems, developing shared infrastructures, implementing management information systems and dealing with rapid technological change are crucial elements of an e-government programme.”36

3.6 Open government Partnership

The Open government Partnership (OGP) is a multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance37. Founded in 2011, it arises originally from President Obama’s launch in early 2009 of his Open Government Initiative38 and is based on multi- stakeholder collaboration, including representatives of governments and civil society organisations. To become a member of the OGP, participating countries must endorse a high-level Open Government Declaration, deliver a country action plan developed with public consultation, and commit to independent reporting on their progress going forward. The current total of 66 participating countries have made over 1,000 commitments to make their governments more open and accountable.

All five ReSPA countries39 are participating in the OGP with the current status (see chapter 3.6):

35

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGI ESEXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGI ES/EXTE- GOVERNMENT/0,,contentMDK:20870448~menuPK:6226295~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:702586,00.htm l 36 op cit 37 http://www.opengovpartnership.org 38 https://www.whitehouse.gov/open/about 39 Kosovo* is not eligible for OGP membership.

33

• Albania: second Action Plan cycle

• Bosnia and Herzegovina: developing Action Plan

• Macedonia: third Action Plan cycle

• Montenegro: second Action Plan drafted and in public debate

• Serbia: first Action Plan cycle

4 Comparative analysis of e- and open government survey results

This section summarises, compares and contrasts evidence coming from surveys carried out in five Western Balkan Countries and Kosovo* in 2012 and 2015 both on their e-government and open government status and progress.

4.1 Overview of survey responses and analysis undertaken

In 2012 ReSPA conducted a survey of the Western Balkan countries e-government status. Using this data as a baseline, ReSPA initiated a follow-up survey in the autumn of 2015, but also enlarged the survey to include new areas of interest – open government, open government data, public-private-partnerships (PPPs), public-civil-partnerships (PCPs), and cloud computing. In August and September 2015, inputs to the survey were collected and analysed by independent national experts who, in addition to desk research, also interviewed relevant civil servants in the public administration.

4.2 E-government and open government policies, including legal and institutional

frameworks (status and progress since 2012) The organisation of e-government policies and strategies, as well as the execution of action plans, in the Western Balkans has undergone some formal changes in all countries since 2012. There is no one specific model for organising e-government in the region.

4.2.1 E-government policies

Regardless of the formal setup, the effectiveness and impacts of e-government and open government policies seem to rely more on using a strategic approach with direct responsibility for executing action plans and strategy in the Western Balkans. The greatest overall achievements in the past three years have been made by Albania and Montenegro, which both concentrated on delivering sophisticated transactional and connected e-services through one central portal and which offer government services through ‘one-stop-shop’ models. In the past three years, both countries created a number of laws and amendments to laws, coupled with comprehensive strategies and action plans. The impact of policies and frameworks on e-government in these two countries are accordingly higher than in the other countries analysed.

34

For Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Macedonia and Serbia, much e-government activity is taking place, but this is often without overall effective strategies so tends to be uncoordinated across government and instead devolved mainly to individual government entities and projects.

In Bosnia & Herzegovina a decade has passed since ICT stakeholders got together but today there is no central government body and instead several major players are involved in e-government. The country is however presently building a strategy for information society development in line with the Digital Agenda of the Europe 2020 strategy, but without any central body responsible for coordination.

In Kosovo*, the Ministry of Public Administration is dealing with e-government at a low level, concentrating on civil service and public administration policies. The E-Government Strategy 2009- 2015 expires this year, and a new plan has not yet been developed. A planned law on e- governance that would legally enforce using e-services has been removed from the legislative agenda for the time being. After setting up the National Data Center in 2013 and establishing a government network, this lack of coordination has made public institutions look for independent alternatives.

Serbia has seen responsibility for e-government shift back and forth between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-government. The 2009-2013 Strategy and Action plan for E-Government Development was prepared by the Ministry of Trade, Telecommunication and Information Society, but after the change of government jurisdiction was subsequently changed. This has led to a lack of continuity, so that e-government and open government are not currently ranked very high as a priority. This is perhaps the main reason why Serbia has slipped from its leading e-government position in the Western Balkans in 2012-13 to lag today lag behind Montenegro and Albania (see chapter 3.2). The focus of the Ministry has been on cutting the budget deficit by optimising the number of employees in government. Progress has mostly been seen in the regulatory framework, while the national e-government strategy and action plan (proposed by the MPALSG) is awaiting adoption by the end of 2015.

In Macedonia, the three departments in the Ministry of Information Society and Administration (MISA) with responsibility for e-government have merged into one, and the ministry is today chairing a national coordinating body with the mandate to coordinate ICT projects in different institutions. Macedonia however, has a tendency to make projects and laws first, and then follow up with strategies later. This is also evident in the new focus on data quality in Macedonia. Greater bilateral exchange of data between institutions and the need for interoperability require better data quality in electronic registries, and national standards for data quality are thus currently being developed.

4.2.2 Open government policies

As with e-government policies, open government policies in the region has seen earlier and much more strategic focus in Albania and Montenegro than in the other countries. Both countries joined

35

the Open Government Partnership (OGP) initiative (see chapter 3.6) in 2011, and developed their first Open Government Data (OGD) action plans around that time. Albania is already on its second action plan, while Montenegro is currently collecting input from different stakeholders on its draft second action plan. In Albania the open government agenda of OGP is broader than a narrow focus on OGD. The first action plan focused on fiscal transparency, access to information, the use of ICT, and participation in public policy development. The second action plan is building on some of the achievements of the first one and focus is now on public integrity, efficiency, service improvement, and creating safer communities. The action plans are closely linked to efforts within e-government, and as such take a whole-of-government approach.

In Montenegro, a special monitoring taskforce oversees the OGD action plans. For the first action plan, the taskforce reported 10 fully completed and 28 limited completed milestones out of 56 milestones in total. Results include e-licenses and e-registrations for businesses, the e-government portal, e-petitions, public e-procurement, and digital systems for budget transparency, etc. In 2014 Macedonia prepared its third OGP action plan, and passed a law on public sector data use. The country regularly publishes OGP action plan progress on its e-democracy portal, and to date 154 data sets have been made available on the OGD portal. During 2015 open data hackathons, workshops and meet-ups were held.

In Serbia there has been growing political support for open government. Serbia joined the OGP in 2012, and the government adopted its first action plan in December 2014. The plan includes fighting against corruption, public integrity, access to information, the further development of public services on the central e-government portal, a multi-channel approach to services, freedom of the media, civil society, and the efficient management of public resources. Although there is political will to strengthen transparency, and improve the position of the independent regulatory and public administration, in practice this is not always the case, as Serbia lacks experience in what open government actually means.

Bosnia & Herzegovina (BiH) is planning to improve transparency and publish OGD. The country formally joined the OGP in September 2014 and is developing its first action plan. The Council of Ministers of BiH has issued a request to all ministries and agencies to start planning for adoption of open government policies. Although action teams have been formed, and a series of meetings held, there are no concrete results yet.

Kosovo* is not yet a member of the OGP, but has applied to be so. A policy and action plan for 2014-2016 has been created, and there is an initiative to revise the Law on Access to Public Information, but a general lack of interest within government to implement the action plan means few results have been achieved.

Where OGD may not be high on the agenda of governments in BiH and Kosovo*, civil society organisations have tended to step in and are seeking pathways to engage in OGD by establishing their own OGD portals and creating data sets.

36

4.3 Interoperability and base registries (status and progress since 2012)

4.3.1 Interoperability policy and framework

Interoperability is the term used to describe the ability of diverse systems and organisations to work together (interoperate) and exchange data. The European Union’s European Interoperability Framework for European Publics Services 2.0 (EIF 2.0)40 from 2010 establishes a model for National Interoperability Frameworks (NIFs) of Member States and Associated Countries. Alignment and compliance with EIF 2.0 takes account of the European Commission’s Digital Agenda, but no one nation state is the same so the NIFs of individual countries will naturally deviate from each other. The EIF was agreed by European countries to help develop cross-border e-government services and to make NIFs interoperable with each other. Table 4 presents the status and progress of NIFs as reported by each country. Where the previous ReSPA e- government report outlined NIFs in their infancy and under preparation in the Western Balkan states, the dates shown in Table 4 highlight the considerable progress made in this area in Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Serbia has created and adopted an NIF41, but implementation is partial. BiH has developed an interoperability plan, but this is not yet accepted on all levels of public administration, whilst Kosovo* has also developed one though this is not yet implemented.

Having an actual interoperability framework has especially showed its benefits in Albania with its creation of transactional and connected e-services. In the case of BiH (with no NIF), and Macedonia and Montenegro, which still have important challenges in defining interoperability standards, data exchange becomes subject to bilateral agreements between individual government bodies and tends to be done mostly vertically.

Table 4 Interoperability policy and framework, recent developments

Albania • Inter-sectorial Strategy Albania Digital Agenda 2015-2020

• Law on State Databases (2010) • National Interoperability Framework (2014)

• Technical Specification for the System of Interoperability of State Databases. (NAIS, March July 2013)

• Technical standards on ESB – Government Gateway and Government Payment Gateway (Nais, March 2015)

• DoCM nr 961, November 2010 for appointing the coordinating and regulatory body for state databases

• DoCM Nr 945, November 2012 for the approval of the regulation for the Administration of the system of State Databases

40 http://ec.europa.eu/isa/documents/isa_annex_ii_eif_en.pdf 41 Technical interoperability standards developed (http://deu.gov.rs/dokumenti/lista_standarda_interoperabilnosti/)

37

Bosnia & Herzegovina

• National plan for Interoperability is adopted (planning phase ended 2013), but still needs to be verified in various parliaments

Kosovo* • No proper policies and frameworks has been created • National (Government) Data Centre in (2013)

Macedonia

• Law on Data Exchange and Interoperability is already in place • MIF (Macedonian interoperability Framework) in compliance with EIF

finalised by the end of 2015 • Law on Electronic Management bylaws and guidelines (needs revision to

cover all actions needed to implement the law) • Technical interoperability standards will be finalised by the end of 2015

Montenegro

• NIF adopted (end of 2011), but didn’t comply fully with EIF 2010 • NIF second version 2013, specifies Law on e-government and the e-

government 2016 development action plan • There are still important technical, semantic, organizational and legal

barriers for data exchange • MIDT started with the Government Service Bus (GSB) Project, which is in

the first phase that includes: MIDT, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare

Serbia

• NIF since 2012 creating frameworks • NIF adopted • Strategy and Action Plan for E-Government Development 2015-2018 is

under preparation. • Strategy of the Public Administration Reform with action plan for the period

from 2015 to 2017 (adopted 2014)

4.3.2 Base registries

Base registries are important building blocks in modern e-government. A centralised base registry contains databases with basic information units necessary for the work of a country’s public administration. If these are duplicated, errors are likely to occur if not maintained by and extracted from one authoritative register. A base key register can identify units such as natural persons, legal persons (e.g. businesses), land parcels and geospatial units, property like buildings and dwellings. A typical register of persons will include details such as name, age, address, birthplace, etc., all information that public bodies will need for citizen identification, interaction and administration. Individual government entities have in the past typically created their own persons register, asking citizens and businesses to identify themselves for each register. Duplication of subsets of these data is thus widespread, implemented with different data formats and semantics, and are thereby often semantically inoperable and incomparable, although containing and identifying the same basic data units. Having just one authoritative register, from where data cab be queried and where updates are immediately submitted by all entities, can lead to substantial effectiveness and efficiency gains for government.

38

In line with the ReSPA 2013 study, generic types of basic electronic registries, and with the addition of five new types (numbers 6 to 10 in Table 5), have been identified and investigated for how digital they are or if they are still maintained in paper mode. Table 5 summarises how far each country is in digitalising its base key registries, making these available online, whether they are connected to interoperability systems, and whether citizens can check their own data stored in them.

Generally, the countries have made good progress in digitalising their registries, the exceptions being Serbia and Kosovo*, where registries are generally only in partly digitalised or in paper mode, and Kosovo* still needs to develop some. Looking across all ten key registers in Table 5, Macedonia is the leading country, with Albania closely behind. BiH and Montenegro followed by Serbia and Kosovo*. However in both Bosnia & Herzegovina and Montenegro, base registries are only either partially connected to an interoperability system or are only exchanging data with other public bodies based on bilateral agreements – and often only vertically within silos of government. In the case of BiH an operability framework horizontally across government exists only in a handful of agencies, and in Montenegro there are still important interoperability barriers hindering data exchange. Albania and Macedonia also score highest in being connected to interoperability systems, and additionally they manage to make the data available online and in enabling citizens to check their data. Montenegro is well aware of the incompatibility between systems, and an important task for 2015 is to create a unique information system to enable data exchange between incompatible systems. But barriers still exists and the law on e-government does not include provisions for obligatory data exchange between public authorities.

Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro all seem to have realised that semantic interoperability cannot be achieved without coordination, while BiH so far has taken a vertical and ad hoc approach. In Serbia the creation of many new isolated, entrenched, and separate IT systems in the past few years to solve specific local problems has made the barriers to interoperability even higher, although some services recently developed involve the exchange of data between different institutions (e.g. MoI, BRA, etc.).

The last row of Table 5 also shows the scores achieved by these countries in the 2012 survey and that all countries have made considerable progress with overall progress increasing almost three- fold, even though the type of base registries now being digitising has only doubled from five to ten. The table indicates that the country which has made greatest absolute progress in digitising base registries is BiH, closely followed by Albania and then Macedonia, with Montenegro, Kosovo* and Serbia following. Apart from BIH which has increased sixfold, Albania has made the greatest proportional progress, followed by Montenegro, in line with the fact that these two countries have also become the two e-government regional leaders over the last few years.

39

ReSPA e-government Analysis

Table 5 Base key electronic registers

D = fully digital; d = partially digital; p = paper mode

A = available online; a = partially available online

S = connected to interoperability systems; s = partially connected to interoperability or bilateral data exchange system

C = citizens can check their data; c = citizens can partially check their data

Score: All large letters score 1, all small letters score ½

Country Key Register

Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina

Kosovo* Macedonia Montenegro Serbia Total

score

D A S C D A S C D A S C D A S C D A S C D A S C 1 Population D A S D A s c dp A S C dp C D a s c d a c 15 2 Businesses/ legal entities D A S C D s dp A S C D A S C D A s C D A s C 20 3 Land / geospatial data d D A s c dp A S C D A S C d s d a c 13½ 4 Real estate D A D A C p D A S C D A C d a c 13½

5 Cars d A S C D A s p D a D s d A c 11

6 Tax register d A S C D A s dp A S C D A S C D a s c d A c 18 7 Health insurance d S C D A d S D A s C D s d 11½ 8 Employment D A S C D A s D A s C D s d a c 13

9 Customs D A c D A s C D A S C D C d Aa c 14

10 Pension D A S C D s D A s C D s d a c 12

Total 6D 4d 8A 7S 6C

1c 10D 8A 8s 2C 2c 5d 4A 5S 4C 9D 8A

1d 1a 5S 9C 9D 2A 3s 1d 2a 8s 3C 1D 4A

2c 9d 5a 1s 1C 8c

Scores 8 8 7 6½ 10 8 4 3 2½ 4 5 4 9½ 8½ 6½ 9 9½ 3 4 4 5½ 6½ ½ 5 Total score 2015 29½ 25 15½ 33½ 20½ 17½ 141½

Total score 2012 11 4 9½ 15 9½ 8½ 57½

40

ReSPA e-government Analysis 4.4 E-government user interface (status and progress since 2012)

E-government user interfaces refer to the electronic interface between the public administration and the user. It also refers to how this interface is used by the user, e.g. how the user finds information through a search engine, by navigating through government functions, service lists, etc. Other aspects of the user interface are how the user is identified and authenticated, as well as how payments can be made electronically through e-payments. Table 6 summarises the current status as well as progress since 2012 in the e-government user interface, as reported by each country.

While Albania has brought together e-services in one unique portal as the main interface to citizens and businesses, and provided identification and authentication support, the number of diverse portals both G2C (Government to Citizen) and G2B (Government to Business) has grown in Macedonia indicating how projects are implemented in advance of unifying strategies in the country. Generally, the types of navigation and e-payment options are more diverse in the Western Balkan countries now, although the sophisticated levels are generally not high.

As noted earlier in the 2013 ReSPA study, there is no intrinsic advantage or disadvantage in the number of portals, as long as they are simple, easy to find and linked, as well as being clear in terms of their function and purposes. An example of this is BiH, with a number of portals at entity level, rather than state level, but where state agencies have implemented the same template for all government web sites creating a common user interface with the same look and feel. In Serbia a set of common web creation guidelines has given all websites unified navigation facilities and search services. Of all jurisdictions, Kosovo* seems to have the least developed e-government user interface, but is currently preparing two different user identification systems.

With increased sophistication of government e-services, the need for developing the user interface is rising. Transactional and connected services require electronic identification and sign on, and a large number of e-services requires support for e-payments, both for receiving payments and delivering benefits and support to citizens and businesses.

There is very little data on the number of e-government users, given that the ReSPA countries are generally not measured by Eurostat as part of its EU28 e-government measurements. Only Macedonia and Serbia have been able to supply recent data which show e-government usage as comparable with Slovenia and Croatia as well as many other Eastern European countries. Regarding the sources of national e-government benchmarking, neither Kosovo* nor Macedonia have such systems, but like Albania rely on the UN e-government and the eSEE surveys. Montenegro and Serbia both have tailored systems based respectively on the European Commission method and their own national approach.

41

ReSPA e-government Analysis

Table 6 e-government user interfaces (bold and italics means there are updates from 2012)

Portals

Navigation

Search

eID and

identifica- tion

ePayment

e-government

usage data

Benchmarking measures

Albania • Joint G2C & G2B portal

• Service types

• Themes

• Government functions

Yes • 2 systems • 5 systems (Tax, e- banking, e-Albania payment gateway, Customs)

N/A United Nations Public Administration Network – UNPAN

Matrix Fulfilment of the eSEE agenda (http://www.eseeinitiative.org/)

Bosnia & Herze- govina

• 2 G2C

• 1 G2B

• User types

• List of services

• Government functions

Yes

• RS

eSignature

• National eID embedded on ID card

• 1 system (Business

VAT)

N/A

e-government Report by MEDIA Center in 2013.

Kosovo • 1 G2C

• 1 G2B

• 1 system in

testing

• 1 system in planning

N/A

No benchmarking for e-government is yet available in Kosovo* and is not yet planned as it is considered “low” priority.

Mace- donia

• 7 G2C

• 7 G2B

• User types

• Service lists

• Government functions

• 2 commercial

CA issuing digital signatures

• 4 systems (Tax,

registrations, e- banking)

• Interaction:

34.9% (2014)

• Info: 36.0% (2014)

• Download forms: 10.5%

No

Portals

Navigation

Search

eID and identifica-

tion

ePayment

e-government

usage data

Benchmarking measures

(2014)

• Send forms: 16.9% (2014)

Monte- negro

• Joint G2C &

G2B portal

• 1 other G2C

• 1 other G2B

• Authentica-

tion level • User types

• Service lists

• Government functions

Yes

• 2 systems

• 1 system in planning

• 2 systems (government

portal, bank payments)

N/A

Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications performs yearly Analysis of e-government development using methodology developed by European Commission

Serbia • Joint G2C &

• 1 other G2C

• 2 other G2B

• Life events

• Name of service

• Name of institution

Yes

• 4 systems (all

certified by digital authorities)

• 1 system (bank

payments)

• Interaction:

1.3 million (2014)

• Info: 36.0% (2014)

• Download forms: 20.6% (2014)

• Send forms: 13.1% (2014)

“Use of ICT in Republic of Serbia, 2014”, report published by the Serbian Statistical Office (http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/ repository/documents/00/01/ 50/47/ICT2014s.pdf)

At sub-national level, there are reports “ICT in Serbia - At a glance, 2015”, available at http://vojvodinaictcluster.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/08/ICT-in-Serbia-At-a-Glance- 2015.pdf and “ICT in Serbia - At a glance, January 2013”, available at http://www.daad.rs/imperia/md/ content/informationszentren/ belgrad/23012013_ ict_in_serbia_at_a_glance_2013.pdf, both published by the Vojvodina ICT Cluster In cooperation with Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).

42

ReSPA e-government Analysis 4.5 User empowerment and centricity (status and progress since 2012)

User empowerment and user centricity refer to the ability of users to have some control over the appearance, configuration and functionality of the e-government interfaces and services they use. User empowerment and centricity take many forms. They can include whether or not users can personalise the e-government websites they use; the availability of social media and Web 2.0 tools to create their own content or add their own comments; whether they can provide feedback on services and or policies; whether they can participate in discussions, decisions and policy-making; whether governments enable users to collaborate and co-produce content and services; whether open government data is available in a machine readable format; and issues of transparency and trust. Transparency refers to the extent to which information about government and what it does is easily available to citizens (apart from types of information legally defined as confidential, secret or subject to personal data protection), and whether or not citizens can freely ask questions about this information. Trust also refers to the other features that enable citizens to trust the public administration, such as anti-corruption measures, ease of contacting and questioning government officials politicians, etc.

Table 8 and Table 9 show the current status and updates in user empowerment and centricity features compared to the ReSPA 2013 report. Albania’s and Montenegro’s focused efforts in offering e-services to citizens and businesses through a central portal has benefitted users with service improvements. This is not evident in the other countries, although Serbia has now obligated all government bodies to make their e-services available on the central portal and this is starting to have some effect. The strategies for simplifying and streamlining citizen/business interactions with government using a one-stop-shop concept should be able to empower the user. Common user benefits mentioned by all the countries are time and cost savings for users and not having to queue in government offices. Another common benefit more or less explicitly listed, is administrative burden reduction through service simplification, less administration and more convenience. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s model for delivering public e-services is a very decentralised approach, but one additional benefit mentioned is the ability to serve everyone in their own language and alphabet.

The supply of electronic government services is increasing, but for users to realise the benefits and increase demand and use, they must be aware of their existence. However, lack of awareness of the e-service offerings and missing e-skills is a major barrier. Decreasing the e-skills gap (especially for older people) and increasing digital literacy in the population, are prerequisites for reaping the benefits of the information society.

Although the widespread use of social media is cited by Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia, and in some cases not just for awareness raising but also for user interaction, awareness of government e-services offerings remains low. Public administrations and businesses all over the world are increasingly using social media as a means for spreading information. Only a few of them have actually ‘cracked the code’ on how to actively engage users through social media and Web 2.0 tools. This is partly due to public administration cultures, where individual civil servants

43

seldom act proactively vis-à-vis advising the public on benefits nor engage directly with the public online. Communication via social media also has a cultural aspect, where the conversation is often less formal, something public administrations have to learn how to master.

Another aspect is the increasing use of mobile devices. As Table 7 shows, accessing the Internet through mobile phones or tablets is increasingly common. Mobile devices have smaller screens, and websites should use responsive design to dynamically tailor content and layout for different devices. Service personalisation is not reported by any country except for Macedonia where there are some examples. More sophisticated service personalisation requires knowledge about the user. Mobile devices indirectly offer government an easy way of personalising content and services, as the geographical location of the device is queryable in real time. Some of the most successful efforts in a global context are those public administrations (and businesses) which strive to understand their users and serve content and services specifically tailored for them in real time. As in the example of knowing the geo-position of the user, not all service personalisation requires that the user logs-in to identify him or herself. Social media communication also delivers some automatic information about the user. If used sensibly and in a non-intrusive way, a more meaningful conversation can be had with the user.

Table 7 Desktop, Mobile, Tablet interface market

Albania

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Macedonia

Montenegro

Serbia

Desktop

63 %

86 %

77 %

71 %

84 %

Mobile

33 %

12 %

21 %

25 %

13 %

Tablet

4 %

3 %

2 %

4 %

2 %

Source: GlobalStats Counter42, September 2015

Another barrier listed by most countries are aspects of privacy, data protection, and lack of trust in government and government e-services. Governments are addressing such concerns, as evident in their anti-corruption and e-transparency efforts (see Table 9). All countries except for Kosovo* have joined the Open government Partnership43 and all countries either already have or are preparing OGD action plans. Freedom of information laws are also being implemented amongst other anti-corruption measures.

Facilitating feedback and participation are facets of the challenges facing public administrations worldwide. Since 2012 more countries in the Western Balkans have set up facilities such as feedback and contact forms on major government websites (BiH and Serbia). Serbia, Albania, and

42 http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-comparison-monthly-201509-201509-bar 43 http://www.opengovpartnership.org/

44

Montenegro are supporting increased consultation with the public. The experience of Montenegro however indicates that both general e-participation and their e-petition schemes are underused, especially in the latter case since the threshold for 'making government listen' is very high. BiH and Kosovo* offers some examples of feedback and participation, and in the case of Kosovo* these examples are rare due to lack of trust.

45

ReSPA e-government Analysis

Table 8 User empowerment and centricity I (bold and italics means there are updates from 2012)

User benefits

User barriers

Service personalisation

Web 2.0 & Social media

Albania • Time & money • Better info • Convenience • Service improvements • One-stop-shop

• Access • eSkills • Data protection • Lack of awareness &

information

No All ministry websites have social media

Bosnia & Herzegovina

• Time • Convenience • Serve all languages/ alphabets

• Access • eSkills • Trust

No

Some use examples in individual Ministries

Kosovo

• Time & Money • Transparency • Simplify • Participation

• Info overload • Access • Privacy • Lack of trust in government

No

Macedonia

• Reduce paper • 24/7 convenience • Save time & money

• High cost • Awareness • Data protection • Lack of trust in eServices • eSkills

No

Many institutions uses social media

Montenegro

• Better access • ICT accept • Service improvements &

simplification • One-stop-shop • Prevent corruption • Transparency Participation

• High cost, but falling • Awareness

Some examples

• Discussion fora • Others • Much use of social media • RSS & FAQs

Serbia

• Less admin • Time & Money • Convenience

• Leadership • Motivation • Access & use • Privacy

No

• Many uses Facebook, Twitter • Some have YouTube channels

46

Table 9 User empowerment and centricity II (bold and italics means there are updates from 2012)

Feedback & participation

Collaboration with users

Open data

Transparency & Trust

Albania

New law on public consultation with provisions for feedback from stakeholders

Action plan for OGP

• OGD Portal • Open formats • OGD Action plan

• Anti-corruption • Joined OGP+Action plan • Law on the right of information • Law on public consultation

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Some examples, but not systematically

• Open formats • Open Budget

survey

• Joined OGP • Anti-corruption • E-transparency

Kosovo

Some examples, but rare due to lack of trust

• OGD Action plan

• Law on access to public documents

Macedonia

• Citizen diary • E-democracy • user satisfaction (‘traffic lights’)

Action plan for OGP

• OGD Action Plan • Central OGD portal • Open formats

recommended

• Joined OGP+Action plan • Various laws • Anti-corruption

Montenegro

• E-participation (underused) • E-petition (underused, threshold very high)

Action plan for OGP

• Some examples • OGD Action Plan • OGP Portal planned

• Some examples • Joined OGP+Action plan (2nd in

draft) • Strategy for fight against

corruption & organized crime • Follow procurement • Open budget services

Serbia

• E-participation • E-forum • Contact form on govt. websites mandatory • E-government portal has public hearings

and discussion

• OGD decentralised • Some examples

• Joined OGP • Freedom of access to info by default • Strategy for anti-corruption • Public procurement law

47

48

ReSPA e-government Analysis 4.6 Transparency and participation (status and progress since 2012)

Transparency and participation can take many forms in the information society context – especially when moving towards the next stage of the knowledge society. Governments in democratic countries are not omnipotent, but their actions affect millions of citizens’ lives. As citizens’ we have a right to know how our institutions are making decisions, who participates in preparing them, who receives funding, and what information is produced or underlies the preparation or adoption of legal acts. High levels of corruption (even perceived corruption) and lack of trust in governments undermines their ability to act effectively. Governments may digitise, but if the actors in society (citizens, businesses, public bodies, etc.) do not trust each other, transaction costs in society will be higher. Such costs place a burden on all of society, makes it less effective, and less coherent.

As described in the previous chapter 4.5 and in Table 9, the countries in the Western Balkans have increased their efforts in both transparency and participation initiatives. As Accession States to the European Union, and facing considerable systemic corruption in their public institutions, the EU is pushing for the countries in the Western Balkans to take corruption seriously as part of the accession process. Anti-corruption reforms are however easier on paper than in real life implementation. In an e-government and open government context, transparency and participation are means to reform public administrations, combat corruption, and increase the rule of law.

In Albania the Law on the Right to Information and the Law on Public Consultation (both passed in 2014) are new instruments enabling transparency. The right to information has been adopted in all institutions which, on their websites, must publish the programme for transparency describing their work and activities. In addition, they must publish the names of persons responsible, and appoint a coordinator responsible for citizens’ request for information. Execution of the law is overseen by the Commissioner for Data Protection and Right of Information. Albania has also passed a law on public consultation.

The BiH government will launch initiatives to strengthen institutional transparency coupled with open government. In line with the decentralised nature of the country, there have been many small initiatives, but no major activities, in BIH since 2012 to strengthen transparency and participation.

Kosovo* has only seen very limited efforts in these areas which are in their infancy. People have just recently begun to talk about initiatives for e-democracy such as e-petitions and e-participation, due to awareness raising from civil society organisations.

Macedonia has shown promising efforts regarding e-democracy in the previous ReSPA 2013 report. Macedonia has a citizens diary (the ENER - Single National Electronic Register of Regulation) where citizens can discuss draft legislation, the system ‘Semafor’ (Evaluate the Administration), and an e-democracy portal where OGP action plans are published. The impacts of these efforts are unreported, but seem limited to these examples, apart from the Ministry of Information Society and Administration (MISA) which invites businesses to engage in their

49

‘Regulatory Guillotine 4’ to complain and make suggestions for administrative procedure simplifications. Macedonia recently passed a new law to protect whistle-blowers from retaliation.

Montenegro reports significant efforts in “using new media and promoting government transparency”44 compared with other governments in the region. The first step toward participatory budgeting was taken when the Ministry of Finance developed the Visualising Montenegro’s Budget portal,45 which also includes a tax calculator for citizens to input their net salary and find out the amount of money that goes into pension and health insurance, etc. However, the overall transparency level is still not impressive and needs further development. Regarding participatory budgeting and budget monitoring at the local level, the NGO Institut Alternativa has set up a specialised portal46 to host information from municipalities. The poor use of existing tools also reflects a low level of proactive actions by the central and local governments.

Serbia reports no progress since 2012 in government using social media. The e-government portal provides tools for public hearings and discussions on new legislation or amendments to legislation, and a forum for discussing electronic service delivery, but generally the government is not collaborating with users, citizens, or businesses to co-produce content or services. Official Serbian guidelines for government websites include the requirement of providing both a contact form for the website and links to social media. The government’s hierarchical structure and the need to obtain approval from managers before responding and/or commenting hinders the use of social media.

Generally, it can be concluded that active transparency and participation efforts are not very mature in the region. As shown in chapter 4.7, efforts to build transparency and trust concentrate more on the burgeoning efforts within the Open Government Partnership to provide open government data. It was also apparent from chapter 4.5 that Western Balkan governments’ use of social media is limited to awareness raising and providing information, not in engaging with the public for participation, co-creation, or cooperation.

4.7 Open government data, open data, standardization, protection of personal and

sensitive data (status and progress since 2012) As seen in Table 10 all countries in the Western Balkans are working with Open Government Data (OGD) in some form. All countries have joined the Open Government Partnership (OGP), except Kosovo* which is applying for membership. Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro were some of the earliest countries to join the OGP, whilst BIH and Serbia joined in 2014.

44 NGO Center for Democratic Transition (2013): “Using new media to promote government transparency”. http://issuu.com/cdt_crnagora/docs/reg_durbin_cg_web 45 http://budzet.sntcg.com 46 www.mojgrad.me

50

Publishing Open Government Data is most advanced in Macedonia, where 27 institutions offer 154 open data sets on the OGD portal47. As seen in chapter 4.6, Montenegro was also one of the earliest regional adopters of e-participation and e-democracy tools.

Civil society organisations seems to have played a very active part in BIH and Serbia in pushing OGD to the public, perhaps even spurring their governments to join the OGP.

Table 10 Open government Data and Open government Partnership

Open government Portal / information web sites

Open government Data

Membership of Open government Partnership

Albania

• OGD Portal: www.e-albania.al Institute of Statistics: www.instat.gov.al

• Information on payments made by Government Treasury: http://www.financa.gov.al/al/raportime/t hesari/pagesa-te-kryera-nga-drejtoria- e-pergjithshme-e-sherbimeve- financiare

• Each institution publishes on their websites the Program of Transparency according to the Law on right of information (point 7 of the law on the right on information Nr.119/2014)

• OGD Portal: www.opendata.gov.al and also a portal as part of the www.e- albania.al portal (planned)

• Budget expenditure of treasury, by Ministry of Finance

• Statistical data, by National Institute of Statistics

• Information on Public Authority Services Delivered by institutions by Right: Information law (nr 119/2014)

Joined OGP September 2011

Current status: Implementing 1st action plan & developing & planning 2nd action plan

Bosnia & Herzegovina

• Info about OGD: ogp.ba (NGO/Government partnership)

• Open Budget survey: budzeti.ba (NGO/Government partnership)

• Budget expenditure of treasury, by Ministry of Finance

Joined OGP September 2014

Current status: Developing 1st Action Plan

Kosovo • N/A

• OGD Portal is planned • When data is published, it

is only PDF Not member of OGP

Adopted 1st action plan

Macedonia

• OGD Portal: http://www.otvorenipodatoci.gov.mk/

• OGP Actions plan progress: e-

• 27 institutions, offering 154 open data sets (109 active and other in

Joined OGP September 2011

47 http://www.otvorenipodatoci.gov.mk

51

Open government Portal / information web sites

Open government Data

Membership of Open government Partnership

demokratija.mk

planning process) and their mash-up on OGD portal

Current status: Implementing 3rd action plan

Montenegro

• The Government of Montenegro Portal

• OGD Portal is planned (www.datagov.me)

• OGP Portal is planned (www.partnerstvo.me)

• Public procurement documents by Public Procurement Administration

• All documents and materials discussed and adopted during Government sessions

Joined OGP September 2011

Current status: Implementing 1st Action Plan & Opened Public Consultations for Draft 2nd

Action Plan

Serbia

• OGD Portal: OpenData.rs (Independent research project)

• Statistical Office: www.stat.gov.rs

• Environmental data: www.sepa.gov.rs

• 25+ datasets on OpenData.rs

• ‘Register of medicines and medical devices’ by Medical Devices Agency of Serbia

• Data by Statistical Office • Real time data from

many sources, e.g. air quality, water quality, allergenic pollen48

Joined OGP April 2014

Current status: Developing 1st Action Plan49

Although Montenegro joined the OGP in 2011 and has drafted the Second Action Plan which is currently in the public debate phase, not much OGD is available, and it has no OGD portal. A Law on Open government Data was prepared by the Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications (MIDT), but was not approved by a government commission which decided that OGD should instead be regulated through the Law on Free Access to Information (FAI), under the authority of the Ministry of Culture. When the FAI law passes and the second OGP action plan is finalised, the Montenegrin government expects adequate legislation will be in place for publishing OGD. Therefore, one of the measures in the Second OGP Action Plan is the OGD

48 Data available in machine readable formats upon request and with the agreement with the Serbian Environmental Protection Agency. 49 Report on implementation on public hearings on http://javnerasprave.euprava.gov.rs/javna-rasprava/65

52

Portal (www.datagov.me), which is planned to be implemented in 2016/2017, just at the same time when amendments on the Law on Free Access to Information (FAI) will be adopted.

Kosovo* adopted its first OGD action plan (2014-2018), but public entities either do not make their data open or only publish them as PDF files. There is only a very small budget for a central OGD portal, and no budget for OGD within institutions. The Agency for Protection of Personal Data, which is in charge of OGD in Kosovo*, relies only on raising awareness about privacy, not OGD.

Fiscal transparency is often one of the first OGD initiatives made by countries, especially as OGD is heralded as a measure for accountability, transparency, and anti-corruption. The Open Budget Survey has published the Open Budget Index since 2006. Table 11 summarises the latest results for the Western Balkan countries of ReSPA, with the exception of Kosovo*. The Open Budget Index places BiH as the most open country regarding fiscal openness and public participation in the budget process. Albania and Macedonia also score high on the index. Surprisingly, Macedonia scores very low on public participation in the budget process, despite its early transparency and participation efforts, this is however partly compensated by its strength of formal oversight institutions, mostly by the auditor. Regardless of these regional comparisons, all countries score below the average on the Open Budget Index and public participation in the budget process. Only Albania and Macedonia score above the global average of the 102 countries in the Open Budget Survey on the strength of formal oversight institutions.

Table 11 Open Budget Survey 201550

Max.score is 100

Transparency (Open budget

index)

Public Participation in

the Budget process

Strength of formal

oversight institutions

Budget oversight

by legislature

Budget oversight by auditor

Albania 38 15 60 49 92 BiH 43 23 50 37 83 Kosovo* - - - - - Macedonia 35 651 58 42 100 Montenegro - - - - - Serbia 14 21 49 42 67

45.36

25.43

52.71

-

- Global average

(of 102 countries)

The Western Balkan countries still have to make considerable efforts for open government data to have any noticeable effects on their societies. Joining the OGP and preparing action plans are not

50 The Open Budget Survey methodology and questionnaire underwent some revisions since the 2012 Survey round, which among other things affected the number and numbering of the questions. For clarity and simplicity, IBP therefore decided to present the results from previous Survey rounds under a separate section: http://internationalbudget.org 51 The score is very low as the public is only informed, without any opportunities to influence budget formulation and execution.

53

enough on their own, although are extremely useful steps in the right direction. It takes will, strong commitment and hard work to foster a culture of openness, transparency and participation.

4.7.1 Data standardisation and data quality

Publishing open data, enabling interoperability, and exchanging data between public entities in the Western Balkan countries has also revealed the need for better data quality. Making data available for public scrutiny by others may reveal inconsistencies and flaws. Western Balkan countries realise this to some extent, and data quality is rising up the agenda. In Albania, the NAIS has published “Technical Standards for the Publication of Data in the Open Data Format”, and in Macedonia there is currently a strong focus on improving data quality through the development of standards in order to reduce any barriers for data exchange between public bodies. In Montenegro, the quality of data is also recognised as a semantic barrier for interoperability and data exchange. In Serbia a project of “Preparation and Implementation of E-Government Infrastructure” is concerned with the quality of data of the Business Registers Agency. Inputs from the survey on Kosovo* indicate that the country has no current standards or principles on OGD and quality of data.

4.7.2 Provisions for protecting user data

A precondition for the exchange of data between ministries and other public agencies is that data is not being mis-used or accessed in an unauthorised manner. Provisions for personal data protection are thus needed, not just within countries themselves, but perhaps especially when data crosses borders as it increasingly does. Events regarding the vulnerability of personal data have especially been highlighted in the few years since the 2013 ReSPA e-government study.

In January 2012, the European Commission proposed a comprehensive reform of data protection rules in the EU. The completion of this reform is a policy priority for the EU in 2015 and has the objective to give back citizens control over their personal data, and to simplify the regulatory environment for business. The data protection reform is a key enabler of the Digital Single Market which the European Commission has prioritised52.

Table 12 summarises the provisions for protecting user data in the Western Balkan countries. Generally there are only few updates since the 2013 study, apart from the fact that Albania has linked the areas of personal data protection with the right to access information under the auspices of the same commissioner. This is interesting, as transparency is the other side of the coin to data protection and a careful balance must be made between the two. In Serbia the area of personal data protection is being strengthened with a new law on data security.

52 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/

54

Table 12 Provisions for protecting user data. ⇒ symbolises updates from 2012

Albania

Each agency collecting and processing data is required to notify and be registered in the database for the Data Protection Commissioner which advises or takes action in case of violation

⇒ The commissioner is now also in charge of rights of access to information

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Mandatory protection defined in the Law on Personal Data Protection. An Agency responsible for monitoring implementation was to be established.

⇒ Agency for Personal Data Protection is still under construction and seems to

be in “maintenance mode"

Kosovo

Law on Protection of Data and Agency for Protection of Personal Data ⇒ The agency’s activities are so far only in terms of awareness raising.

Safeguards for protection of user data are largely missing in Kosovo*

Macedonia

Law for Personal Data Protection gives formal provision for protecting user data. Informal provisions are expressed with bilateral agreements between two entities exchanging data, and agreed upon before establishing connections

⇒ No updates

Montenegro Law on Personal Data Protection and Agency for the Protection of Personal Data and the Free Access to Information

⇒ No updates

Serbia

Law on Personal Data Protection ⇒ New Law on Information Security drafted. After a round of consultations with

competent authorities, adoption is planned for end of 2015

4.8 Cloud computing: status

Cloud computing is a service in which IT infrastructures, platforms and software are provided centrally and distributed to end users over a network on an as needs basis. By centralising data storage and processing, economies of scale even the largest organisations cannot achieve by themselves are achievable. Cloud computing therefore represents considerable potential savings in IT budgets, and offers solutions to some of the problems seen in other computing solutions. Cloud computing is, however, a heterogeneous field with a variety of different standards, contract terms, and conditions. The European public sector in particular stands to gain from utilising cloud computing, but the safety of data in the cloud, where data is placed, and how it is processed remain issues to be resolved.

53 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0529:FIN:EN:PDF

55

In September 2012, the European Commission adopted a strategy for ”Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe”53 designed to speed up and increase the use of cloud computing across all economic sectors. The aim of the cloud computing strategy is to develop model contract terms that can regulate issues not covered by the Common European Sales Law such as: data preservation after termination of the contract; data disclosure and integrity; data location and transfer; ownership of the data; direct and indirect liability change of service by cloud providers and subcontracting.

The Western Balkan countries are facing the same cloud computing challenges as the rest of Europe. Private government cloud solutions and public cloud offerings are not mutually exclusive. Around the world public administrations are facing the challenging problem of integrating the services provided by their private cloud with data and services provided by external clouds. Lack of skills, heterogeneous standards, vendor lock-in, data protection and national data protection laws, and establishing the trust between European States necessary to go beyond borders and exchange data, are challenges faced by all.

Cloud types and offerings, the legal situation, finance and organisation in the Western Balkan countries are summarised in Table 13. All countries in the region have yet to create legal frameworks (cloud laws) that tackle the particular issues presented by cloud computing. Albania relies on a model where a private government cloud (and national data center) provide cloud services to the public sector. The regulatory basis is just compliance with internal government regulation. The current legal framework in Serbia does not fully regulate the hosting of government data outside government premises, and this presents an enormous obstacle for public cloud computing. Officially there is accordingly no use of public cloud computing in Serbia. Nevertheless, the Serbian national expert of this study notes that almost all public sector employees use some forms of public cloud services in their daily work, but not officially sanctioned.

Macedonia and Montenegro are both in the process of developing government cloud strategies. In Montenegro there is a private government cloud, and in Macedonia public cloud solutions from local national providers are used. There are also examples of hosting as part of procurement requirements, but the transfer of personal data to other countries is subject to the Law for Personal Data Protection by placing a special level of protection if data is stored outside of the country. In line with the decentralised nature of public administration in BIH, there are examples of individual public organisations using private solutions from their own data centers, mixed with, for example, webhosting in public clouds. In Kosovo* a National Data Center was created two years ago, but it does not offer cloud services, although such services are being considered for the future

ReSPA e-government Analysis

Table 13 Cloud Computing legal and regulatory basis, finance and organisation

Cloud types and examples

Finance and organisation

Cloud Law

Legal and regulatory basis

Albania Private cloud: Government Network and Datacentre • Mail services • Active Directory services • Internet services • Virtual servers

National Agency on Information Society (NAIS)

No • NAIS Delivers Centralised Services to the Government Institutions as one of his duties as by DoCM 703 dt 29.10.2014

• Cloud services are only delivered in a private cloud by NAIS, so has to comply with internal government regulations.

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Private clouds: Agency Data Centers • Web hosting • Application hosting • eSignature option

Public cloud: Individual pub. organisations • Webhosting

Individual organisations own budget.

No

No, specific law, but in line with protection of data and other related laws

Kosovo* No cloud: National Data Center Central budget for government wide network

No None

Macedonia

Public clouds: Pub. Institutions • Webhosting • Application hosting

Individual institutions own planning, implementation and budget.

No

• None, but national strategy is under development.

• Transfer of personal data to other countries is subject to a special level of protection by Law for Personal Data Protection

Montenegro Private cloud: Government cloud • Self-service portal • 30 virtual servers

Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications (MIDT)

No Strategy under development by MIDT Same security and privacy measures that MIDT applies to entire information system

Serbia

Private clouds: • National Infrastructure as a

service (IaaS) cloud (EU funded project)

Entities use their own budgets

No

None

Current legal framework forbids data to be hosted outside government premises

56

ReSPA e-government Analysis 4.9 Public Private Partnerships and Public Civil Partnerships: status

Governments can do much but not everything. Countries are increasing realising this, and forming partnerships with the private and civil sectors can help leverage government efforts across many areas. In e-government and open government contexts, the government will often need to collaborate with specialised private IT companies and those with expertise in designing and implementing e-services. There may also be situations where a private company can provide much cheaper and just as effective products and services compared to individual government entities because it can provide these to a large number of such entities, including in different countries, and thereby is also likely to be at the forefront of developments in a particular field. Private companies may also be able to provide investment capital and advice in appropriate contexts. Similarly, civil society organisations and NGOs can be indispensible partners with government given their much greater knowledge and contacts with different social groups in society and thus assist government better design and implement appropriate services tailored for such groups. The co-creation of products and service between government, the private sector and civil society can, in many circumstances, result in both more efficient and effective solutions.

However, there are also dangers in PPPs and PCPs, for example if partnership contracts are badly drawn up so that the partners’ reciprocal roles and relationships are not clear and/or if obligations, including financial, are not conducive to efficient and effective outcomes. In the case of PPPs, the private sector has by definition, its main interest in making profits and reducing costs and this may conflict with the government’s duty to serve the public interest and maximise public value. In the case of PCPs, a civil organisation may be compromised by only serving its constituents or members interests, which again may conflict with the broader public interest. A coordination problem may also arise in, for example, designing and delivering public services when the number of partners increases, such as when different organisations, standards and cultures need to work closely together. Whether there is a PPP or a PCP arrangement, the government will always have the ultimate role as the only actor that can ensure the interests of the whole of society, and if necessary balance different sectional interests against each other through its democratic mandate. It will also need to set overall standards and ensure they are maintained regardless of which actors deliver services or provide solutions, maximise transparency according to the law (including in relation to contracts), be ultimately accountability for services and performance, and take responsibility especially if things go wrong, including in the area of data protection and security.

Table 14 shows that in the Western Balkans, Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in support of e- government and Open government are covered by law in all the countries except for Kosovo* where there is no direct support. No information is available regarding policies and strategies in BIH where there are no centralised PPP initiatives, as most initiatives are related to individual agencies or ministries.

There are examples from Albania, Kosovo*, and BIH on how a Public-Civil-Partnership (PCP) model has been used for open government and open government data. Action plans on OGP were created in Albania and Kosovo* using such a partnership model.

57

58

In Bosnia & Herzegovina, the vibrant NGO sector in cooperation with government institutions has formed a partnership on OGD for promoting transparent budgeting in the country’s institutions. Another example from BiH, is the inclusion of HUB 387 (an IT community) in developing the ICT strategy of Sarajevo Canton.

In Macedonia, there are no classic PPPs, but there are examples of privatisations of public services, that thus become, in effect, PPPs. An initiate for so-called open services in 2013-2014, had the goal to develop a concept for delivering public services by private companies on behalf of public institutions. The goal of the initiative was also to give the privatised services a qualitative lift, simplifying services and speeding them up, as well as to offer the services from multiple channels.

In Montenegro, PCPs are unregulated by law, but PPPs are covered by the Law for Concessions and the Law on PPP (in the adoption phase). Here PPPs are increasingly used as a mechanism for covering budget deficits. The public engagement campaign “Be Responsible - Zero Grey Economy”, which was jointly developed by the Government of Montenegro and the Faculty for Electrical Engineering, with significant support from UNDP Montenegro, the UK Embassy in Montenegro, and NGOs, has won the second prize at the Open government Partnership's international competition among the best initiatives from 33 countries which promote citizen participation in implementing public policy. The initiative is an interesting example of a PCP where a group of students and professors developed a mobile application and website called “Be Responsible” (Budi odgovoran) and later secured support from the Government and international donors. From the application users can take photos of the informal economy (fake register receipts, black marketing, violations of consumers rights, etc.) and report them to the authorities. Half of the revenues collected from fines based on these citizens’ reports is then spent on community projects proposed and voted for by the citizens themselves.

In Serbia the existing law on PPPs can be used, but there are no specific policies and provisions for PPPs/PCPs in support of e-government or open government, neither are there any actual examples.

ReSPA e-government Analysis

Table 14 Public Private Partnerships and Public Civil Partnerships in support of e-government and open government

Policies and strategies

Examples

Albania

• PPP law – transposition of 2004/18EC directive • New strategy on digital agenda adopted on April 2015

• Action plans for OGP was adopted based on a PCP partnership model

• Digital Police Station Application

Bosnia & Herzegovina

No information available

Vibrant NGO sector working with government promoting e-services • 6 NGOs + govt. institutions formed partnership on OGD • Alliance for promoting transparent budgeting of govt. institutions • Development of Sarajevo Canton ICT Strategy

Kosovo*

• Strategy for PPP 2014-2016 (no direct support) • Strategy for PCP 2013-2017 (indirect support)

• Drafting of the OGP Action Plan which was done with the NGO “FOL” and the MEI

• CSO platform “Civikos” is planning to help government with OGD and will use the PCP strategy

Macedonia

• Law for concessions and public private partnership has been adopted in 2012, and changes have been made in 2014 and 2015.

• There are no classic PPPs, but there is privatisation of public services with higher incomes

• MoI – citizens schedule timing for submitting application and taking photo for ID cards, passports and driving licence

• eService (Personality testing) when applying to administrative service

Montenegro • 2009 Law for Concessions and PPP legislation (2015) • No laws, policies and strategies for PCPs

• PPPs are increasingly being used as a mechanism for covering the budget deficit

• Free wireless internet access project for citizens (joint venture PPP) • PCP ad hoc examples • 11 community projects financed with fines

Serbia

• Existing Law on PPP can be used. • No specific policies or strategies for PPP and/or PCP in

support of e-Government and/or open government.

• No examples

59

60

ReSPA e-government Analysis

5 Alignment with SIGMA Priorities and PAR Principles

5.1 Relevance of e-government and open government to the SIGMA priories

To further align the analysis in the study with ReSPA on-going activities in the region, this analysis also takes account and examines the applicability of how e-government and open government can contribute towards implementing the so-called SIGMA priorities. These priorities are based on the report “The principles of public administration”54, prepared through a joint initiative between the OECD/SIGMA and the EU in November 2014, which:

• defines what good governance entails in practice and outlines the EU integration

requirements

• features a monitoring framework enabling regular analysis of progress made in applying the Principles and setting country benchmarks

• uses qualitative and quantitative indicators, each with precise indicator definitions

• forms the basis for a baseline measurement of the 5 Western Balkan countries and

Kosovo* preparing for EU membership undertaken in April 2015.

Public Administration Reform (PAR) is a pillar of the EU enlargement process, together with the rule of law and economic governance. All three pillars are closely linked cross-cutting issues of fundamental importance for success in political and economic reforms and building a basis for implementing EU rules and standards. A well-functioning public administration is necessary for democratic governance. It also directly impacts upon governments’ ability to provide public services and to foster competitiveness and growth. PAR should lead to enhanced transparency, accountability and effectiveness and ensure a greater focus on the needs of citizens and businesses. This analysis thus examines specifically how e-government and open government can contribute to realising these principles.

5.2 Applicability of current status e-government and open government in the

ReSPA countries to the SIGMA priorities

“The principles of public administration” report sets out principles that cover the six key horizontal priorities of the governance systems that determine the overall performance of the public administration:

1. Strategic framework of public administration reform

54 http://www.sigmaweb.org/publications/Principles-Public-Administration-Overview-Nov2014.pdf

61

2. Policy development and coordination

3. Public service and human resources management

4. Accountability

5. Service delivery

6. Public financial management.

Each Priority is divided into a number of Key Requirements (KRs) that are needed to fulfil it, as presented in Table 15 which provides an overview of the direct contribution each country is making or could make through its e-government and open government activities as assessed by the National Experts. Indirect contributions provided by e-government and open government are likely to be very widespread as they lead both to greater overall efficiencies in government as well as greater overall effectiveness of government policy-making, policy implementation and public services.

Priority 1: Strategic framework for public administration reform shows that the direct support which is or can be provided by e-government and open government is relatively limited. The exception is Kosovo* which, as the least developed e-government and open government jurisdiction, is still in many of the early development stages of its strategic reform programme, so that such activities are likely to be more relevant if only because of timing. For example through the development of comprehensive monitoring and reporting systems for strategic leadership and management, which also involve PPPs and PCPs. Montenegro also sees a similar contribution in the context of strategic leadership.

Priority 2: Policy development and coordination is supported by a much larger number of direct contributions across all 4 Key Requirements, the main focus of which is on harmonising policy planning in KR2 and on ensuring that policy and legislation development are inclusive and harmonised in KR4. The former is shown, for example, by BIH with its electronic central coordination of action plan lists and metrics, as well as Albania’s Electronic Records and Document Management System (ERDMS) which is digitising documents within and across government entities and providing public access to documents through a web site as an example of open government. For KR4 an example is Albania which approved the Law for Information and Public Consultation in 2014 and is currently enacting it through the creation of an electronic register, as well as by Macedonia which is developing the integration of its new e-session system through a System for National Electronic Register of Registries (SNERR).

62

Table 15: e-government and open government support to SIGMA Priorities and Key Requirements (number of direct contributions recorded)

Priorities Albania BiH Kosovo* Macedonia Montenegro Serbia Total

1) Strategic framework of PAR

KR 1: Leadership of public administration reform 1 1 2

KR 2: Public administration reform management 2 2

2) Policy development & coordination

KR 1: Centre of government institutions fulfill all functions 3 1 1 5

KR 2: Policy planning is harmonized 4 3 3 2 2 14

KR 3: Decisions and legislation are transparent, compliant and accessible 1 1 1 1 4

KR 4: Policy and legislative development are Inclusive and evidence-based 5 1 1 4 1 2 14

3) Public service & human resource management

KR 1: The scope of professional public service is clearly defined and applied in practice 1 1 3 2 2 3 12

KR 2: Public service professionalism is ensured by good HR management standards and practices 1 2 4 1 8

4) Accountability

KR 1: Proper mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability, including liability and transparency 2 2 3 2 2 2 13

5) Service delivery

KR 1: Administration is citizen-oriented; the quality and accessibility of public services is ensured 6 5 7 4 3 4 29

6) Public financial management

KR 1: Budget is formulated in compliance with transparent legal provisions & are on sustainable path 1 1 2 2 6

KR 2: Accounting & reporting practices ensure transparency & public scrutiny over public finances 3 2 1 2 3 11

KR 3: National financial management & control policy in line with accession negotiations requirements 1 1 2

KR 4: The internal audit function is established and carried out according to international standards

KR 5: Public procurement regulated by duly enforced policies & procedures on principles of EU 2 2 2 1 1 8

KR 6: For alleged breaches of procurement rules, parties have independent & transparent justice 1 1 1 2 5

KR 7: Authorities resourced & use applicable regulations & good practice openly & competitively 5 1 3 1 10

KR 8: Constitutional & legal framework guarantees independence & mandate of Supreme Audit Instit. 2 1 3

TOTAL 28 16 34 25 19 26 148

63

Priority 3: Public service and human resource management are also well supported by direct contributions from e-government and open government across its two Key Requirements. For example, in relation to the clear definition and application in practice of professional public service in KR1, Montenegro’s Human Resources Management Information System has been implemented, and the interoperability of Serbia’s Civil Service Registry is being improved so that each registry has only one owner and duplicate data is being eliminated. Good managerial standards and practices in public service in KR2 are being addressed, for example, by BIH’s PARCO system which is delivering annual reports on public service progress, as well as in Serbia where knowledge management systems could be introduced and made available to appropriate stakeholders.

Priority 4: Accountability has a very large number of contributions which are or could be directly supportive of its one Key Requirement on the need for proper mechanisms to be in place to ensure accountability as well as liability and transparency. For example, Albania has already envisioned a law for the creation of an electronic register for information and public consultation, whilst Macedonia is developing open websites for submitting requests for information in the public domain, as well as the responses to those requests. Kosovo’s* OPM, MEI and MPA, supported by CSOs could revise the law relating to access to information in the public domain in compliance with OGP policy, for example by creating an open data portal to facilitate the accountability of government institutions.

Priority 5: Service delivery shows the largest number of contributions of any priority which are or could be directly supportive of its one Key Requirement on making the administration citizen- oriented and ensuring that its public services are of high quality and accessible. Montenegro’s MIDT, for example, is to include customer service surveys on the e-government portal and the law on e-government stipulates a deadline of 18 months that all government entities with e-services must make them directly accessible on the e-government portal. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, ID cards have e-signature capability and plans have been adopted to provide for a uniform interoperability standard of all IT systems to ensure consistency in service delivery and quality. Also, Albania’s Digital Agenda Strategy for 2015-2020 provides for actions and budgets for adding services to the e-albania portal, and it is envisioned that the country’s Law for Information and Public Consultation will support increased citizen-centricity by raising awareness of citizens’ needs across the public sector as well as of available citizen e-services.

Priority 6: Public financial management also demonstrates a large number of contributions which are or could be directly supportive, although these are spread across 8 potential Key Requirements. For example, ensuring transparency and public scrutiny of public finances in KR2 is supported by Serbia’s reports on the Ministry of Finance website in the form of OGD, and it is recommended that a single OGD across the whole of government is set up to enable one-stop- shop public access to such data including budgetary data. Also, Albania’s digital state asset register which, when completed by the Ministry of Finance, will be accessible through Govnet by government institutions ensuring internal asset transparency. In relation to KR5 on public procurement, Macedonia is publishing data on a regular basis on its OGD portal about PPP

64

practices as well as areas where PPP is being considered, Serbia publishes procurement plans on its Public Procurement Portal, and Kosovo currently has a website managed by PPRC that publishes procurement calls which could be assisted by a help desk and eventually further extended to e-procurement. KR7 underlines the need to ensure that contracting authorities are adequately staffed and resourced and carry out their work in accordance with applicable regulations and recognised good practice, interacting with an open and competitive supply market. Currently, Montenegro’s e-procurement system only enables potential suppliers to search for public procurement and procurement reports by the PPA for a certain period or about a certain public procurement. This portal receives on average 2,000 to 2,500 visits per day. Parallel with amendments to the Public Procurement Law, complying with the requirements of the EU directives on public procurement, the Public Procurement Administration of Montenegro will develop a new e- procurement system in 2016 which will cover the whole process of public procurement, starting with an electronic advertising system, the electronic evaluation of tenders, the electronic selection of suppliers, electronic ordering, e-contacts, and e-payments. Macedonia is developing online courses for its staff and potential suppliers and making these available on LMS for concessions and PPP topics.

An examination of the overall pattern of direct contributions which e-government and open government are or could make to the SIGMA priorities, as reported by National Experts, shows that 148 such contributions can be mapped. This must, of course, be considered only as a general indication of the types of contributions which are or can be made and in which Priorities, and their constituent Key Requirements, they are relevant. The data presented in Table 16 is thus purely indicative of how e-government and open government are or could be directly supporting Public Administration Reform, as defined through the SIGMA framework, in the Western Balkan ReSPA countries.

Table 16: Total direct contributions of e-government and open government to SIGMA Priorities and the mean direct contributions per key requirement

directPriority

Total contributions

Number of Key

Requirements

Mean direct contributions

per key requirement

1: Strategic framework of PAR 4 2 2 2: Policy development and co- ordination

37

4

9

3: Public service & human resource management

20

2

10

4: Accountability 13 1 13 5: Service delivery 29 1 29 6: Public financial management 45 8 6 Total 148 18 8

65

An examination of Table 16 shows that, although Priority 6 on public financial management shows the greatest number of direct contributions, this is mainly a function of its relatively large number of Key Requirements. Priority 5 on service delivery shows the greatest number of contributions per Key Requirement, which is to be expected given the importance of online service delivery which, if done well, can hugely improve the quality and accessibility of public services to connected citizens and businesses.

Priority 4 on accountability and Priority 3 on public service and human resource management also show many contributions per Key Requirement given the ease with which online and digital information and data can be made available and spread, as well as their value in supporting human management systems of all kinds through rapid data collection, manipulation and presentation as decision aids and policy tracking tools. This also generally explains the benefits of e-government and open government to Priority 2 on policy development and coordination and to Priority 6 on public financial management, both of which can be significantly improved in quantitative as well as qualitative terms by digital systems and data. Open government policies can also ensure that policies, strategies and legal frameworks maximise the availability and use of government data and information, and enable widespread societal consultation, discussion and co- creation in all legitimate activity areas and topics in collaboration with all stakeholders.

Priority 1 on strategic framework of public administration reform is, as mentioned above, the least directly supported of SIGMA priorities by e-government and open government in terms of the current focus by countries. This is because the priority is, as its name and Key Requirements imply, mainly concerned with setting up an overall strategic framework that, in itself, does not necessarily require such support. However, both the leadership and management of public administration reform are and can be directly supported by e-government and open government and the focus on this in most countries has clearly been mainly at the earlier stage of setting up the framework, so this observation is likely to be due largely to timing. This is also indicated by the fact that Kosovo* has most current focus on this priority as it is still involved in many of the early developments of its strategic reform programme, so that such activities are likely to be more relevant at the present time.

The above analysis leads to a number of conclusions regarding the contribution that e-government and open government can make to each of the SIGMA priorities in turn:

1. Strategic framework of public administration reform: the provision of up-to-date,

accurate information as evidence upon which to base strategic decisions, the ability to interrogate data and undertake ex ante and ex post impact assessments of different policy options, and to undertake widespread consultations and awareness raising, including increasing trust in the process.

2. Policy development and coordination: as for Priority 1, plus mechanisms, tools, data for

content and knowledge management and decision-making at policy level.

66

3. Public service and human resources management: mechanisms, tools, data for content and knowledge management, decision-making at public service and human resources level, service monitoring and feedback, and human resources monitoring and feedback.

4. Accountability: transparency, publishing data and information, and tracing and assessing

processes and decision-making for future improvements and refinements. 5. Service delivery: interoperability and base registries to enable well functioning services,

both online and traditional as well as both push and pull, portals, user-centricity and empowerment, and service co-creation and refinement.

6. Public financial management: allocating, managing, tracking, monitoring, auditing, open

data (based on legal framework), and public procurement.

67

6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 From e-government to open government

6.1.1 Developments in open government

The Obama Presidency’s Open Government Directive from 200955 is based on three principles forming the cornerstone of an open government:

• Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what

the government is doing.

• Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that their government can make policies with the benefit of information that is widely dispersed in society.

• Collaboration improves the effectiveness of government by encouraging partnerships and

cooperation within the Federal Government, across levels of government, and between the government and private institutions.

Open government as a set of principles as the basis for action, underpinned by an overt philosophy and mindset of openness, has since been taken up globally, as evidenced by the development of the Open Government Partnership since 2011 (see chapter 3.6). It is now also forming the basis for preparations for the European E-Government Action Plan, 2016-2020, as described in chapter 3.3. This in turn derives from work undertaken in 2013 on a European vision for public services driven by opening up and sharing assets -- making data, services and decisions open -- to enable collaboration and increase bottom-up, participative forms of service design, production and delivery. The kind of public sector organisation at the heart of this transformation is open government, based on the three pillars of Figure 3: open data, open decisions and open services.

55 https://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive

68

Figure 3: The three pillars of Open Governance in the EU56

This move from e-government to open government has also been supported by research into open government and open governance systems, for example most recently by Millard57 who describes four successive, but overlapping waves of e-government development. Figure 4 illustrates how these waves respond to changing perceptions and uses of ICT, so that whereas ‘e-government’ simply took ICT into an existing system making it more efficient but without much change to its structures and modus operandi, transformatory or ‘t-government’ was able to use ICT alongside other drivers to transform these characteristics of government so that it became both more efficient and effective. In turn, lean or ‘l-government’ has been a dramatic response to the financial and economic crisis in the aftermath of 2007-8, whilst today open or ‘o-government’ is starting to form a cohesive conceptual framework, body of evidence and policy programme to turn the attention of government to the burgeoning long-term global challenges the world is facing. This is being done in close collaboration with non-public actors, so that government on behalf of society is able to do more by leveraging more from across the whole of society. Thus, part of the focus is on PPPs and PCPs but additionally emphasising informal partnerships and collaboration, also with individual citizens, interest groups and localities co-creating public value and benefits.

56 European Commission (2013) ―A vision for public services‖, prepared by DG CONNECT after an expert workshop and open public consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/digitalagenda/ en/news/vision-public-services. 57 Millard, J. (2015) ”Open governance systems: doing more with more”, Governent Information Quarterly, in press, 2015.

69

Figure 4: Four waves of e-government evolution

6.1.2 Mapping progress from e-government to open government

Table 17 maps the progress made by each country towards open government deploying a focused definition of the three open government pillars:

• Transparency as defined in the OGP context, which corresponds to open data in the

context of the planned EC E-Government Action Plan 2016-2020. Transparency is measured in this report in relation to the findings from chapter 4 on the two elements of open data and transparency / trust.

• Participation as defined in the OGP context, which corresponds to open decisions in the

context of the planned EC E-Government Action Plan 2016-2020. Participation is measured in this report in relation to the findings from chapter 4 on the two elements of Web 2.0 / social media and feedback / participation.

• Collaboration as defined in the OGP context, which corresponds to open services in the

context of the planned EC E-Government Action Plan 2016-2020. Collaboration is measured in this report in relation to the findings from chapter 4 on the two elements of service personalisation and PPPs/PCPs.

As noted, findings from chapter 4 directly encompassed by this threefold definition are incorporated in Table 17 to provide an overview of individual country progress from e-government to open government. Other findings, such as progress on interoperability and base registries, portals, e-ID, e-payment, and cloud computing, are important enablers of, and typically precursors to, open government but are not characteristics of it according to the above focused definition. Each cell in the table shows a score from 0 to 4 measuring the relative progress across the countries in relation to each of the six open government elements examined. These scores are awarded qualitatively but systematically based on the information provided by the National Experts.

ReSPA e-government Analysis

Table 17: Country progress from e-government to open government (cell scores from 0 to 4)

Transparency (OGP) & open data (EC)

Participation (OGP) & open decisions (EC)

Collaboration (OGP)& open services

Open data

Transparency & trust

Web 2.0 / social media

Feedback & participation

Service per- sonalisation

PPPs/PCPs

Albania

• Budget expenditure of treasury,

by Ministry of Finance • Statistical data 4

• Anti-corruption • Joined OGP+ 2nd

Action Plan • Law on the right of

information 3

All ministry websites have social media

4

New law on public consultation with provisions for feedback from stakeholders 3

No 0

• Action plans for OGP was adopted based on a PCP partnership model

• Digital Police Station Application • ProTIK – ICT Recource Center 2

Bosnia & Herze- govina

• Budget expenditure of treasury,

by Ministry of Finance 3

• Joined OGP • Anti-corruption • E-transparency

3

Some use examples 1

Some examples, but not systematically 1

No 0

• Vibrant NGO sector working with gov promoting e-services • 6 NGOs + govt. institutions formed partnership on OGD • Alliance for promoting transparent budgeting of govt.

institutions • Development of Sarajevo Canton ICT Strategy 4

Kosovo • When data is published, it is

only PDF 1

• Law on access to

public documents 1

0 Some examples, but rare due to lack of trust 0

No 0

• Drafting of the OGP Action Plan which was done with the NGO “FOL” and the MEI

• CSO platform “Civikos” is planning to help government with OGD and will use the PCP strategy 2

Mace- donia

• 27 institutions, offering 154 open data sets (109 active and other in planning process) and their mash-up on OGD portal 4

• Joined OGP+Action

plan • Various laws • Anti-corruption 3

Many institutions uses social media

2

• Citizen diary • E-democracy • user satisfaction (‘traffic

lights’) 4

No 0 • MoI – citizens schedule timing for submitting application and

taking photo for ID cards, passports and driving licence • E-service (personality testing) when applying to administrative

service 1

Monte- negro

• Public procurement documents by the Public Procurement Administration of Montenegro

• All documents and materials debated and adopted at the Governments' session 2

• Joined OGP 2nd

Action Plan drafting • Be Responsible

campaign • Follow procurement • Open budget 3

• Discussion fora • Others • Much use of

social media • RSS & FAQs 4

• E-participation (underused) • E-petition (underused,

threshold very high) 4

Some examples 2

• PPPs are increasingly being used as a mechanism for

covering the budget deficit • OGP Team drawn from business, NGOs & municipalities • Free wireless internet access project for citizens (joint venture

PPP) and PCP ad hoc examples • 11 community projects financed with fines 4

Serbia

• 25+ datasets on OpenData.rs • ‘Register of medicines and

medical devices’ by Medical Devices Agency of Serbia

• Data by Statistical Office • Open Data Readiness

Assessment conducted 3

• Joined OGP • Freedom of access

to info by default • Anti-corruption • Public procurement

law 3

• Many uses Facebook, Twitter

• Some have YouTube channels

3

• E-participation • E-forum • Contact form on govt.

websites mandatory • e-government portal has

public hearings and discussion 4

No 0

• No examples 0

70

ReSPA e-government Analysis

Table 18 summarises the country progress scores from e-government to open government derived from

Table 2 and Table 17.

Table 18: Summary country progress scores from e-government to open government

(1)

e-government online services

scores (UN, 2014)58

Open government scores (2015)59 (2)

Total % score of max 24

(3)

Transparency

(4)

Participation

(5)

Collaboration

Albania 42% 67% 7 7 2 BiH 28% 50% 6 2 4 Kosovo* -- 17% 2 0 2 Macedonia 25% 58% 7 6 1 Montenegro 48% 79% 5 8 6 Serbia 37% 54% 6 7 0 Mean score 36% 53% 5 5 2

As summarised in column (1) of Table 18, and as noted above in chapter 3.2, Montenegro is currently the clear e-government leader amongst Western Balkan ReSPA countries according to the UN E-Government Survey, 2014, a place it has only achieved since 2012, emerging from the position of the least well performing country in 2008. This is also shown by comparison with the data presented in the ReSPA e-government survey from 201360. Both Albania and Serbia also perform well, and above the global mean with Albania often ahead in terms of specific e- government developments, whilst Serbia does better on the two e-government enablers of telecommunications infrastructure and human capital. Both BIH and Macedonia lag these three countries, and it is especially Macedonia that has fallen behind over the last few years compared to the UN e-government Surveys between 2008 and 2014 (see Table 1) and the 2013 ReSPA report.

Column (2) of Table 18 shows these countries’ open government scores and it is noteworthy that a very similar rank order is apparent as found in the UN’s e-government scores:

58 Derived from

Table 2. 59 Derived from Table 17. 60 RePA, Regional School of Public Administration (2013) ”ReSPA Regional Comparative e-government Study”, ReSPA, Danilovgrad, Montenegro.

71

72

• Montenegro is the clear open government leader, doing extremely well on participation and very well on collaboration compared with the average, but only has an average score on transparency where it lags the leaders Macedonia and Albania.

• Albania also performs very well on open government overall, doing well on both

transparency and participation but falling well behind the leaders on collaboration.

• Macedonia is third rank performer on open government but still well above the regional average, with a good all round score and doing particularly well on transparency where it is the leader, but poorly on collaboration.

• Serbia performs at about the average level but does very well on both transparency and

participation, being held seriously back by its lack of any real efforts regarding collaboration.

• Bosnia and Herzegovina performs a little below average on open government, as it does

on e-government, doing well on transparency, less well on collaboration and poorly on participation.

• Kosovo* is the weakest of the six juridsictions on open government, but is of course a very

late developer and has numerous political and institutional challenges not faced in the same way by the other countries.

Overall, it is clear that e-government as such is clearly a necessary basis for developing open government given the very close coherence between e-government and open government scores. Many of the models of e-government focus on development stages, starting with digitising the back office and then putting front-office services online, before being able in technical, organisational, competence and political terms to progress towards an open government framework built on using ICT to become transparent, participative and collaborative. However, there is one interesting exception to the general coherence between e-government and open government scores. Macedonia has only slipped somewhat behind the other countries on e-government in the past few years, and this earlier achievement has perhaps contributed to an exceptional performance as a leader on transparency and a good performance on participation in the context of open government.

6.2 Conclusions and recommendations for countries

The recommendations in this chapter are derived both from the National Experts and from the analysis presented in this report.

6.2.1 Albania

Albania is performing very well on both e-government and open government, particularly regarding

73

transparency and participation, although it needs to address collaboration issues as here it is falling well behind the regional leaders.

The steps made in Albania in e-government and open government have significantly improved service delivery and provided more e-services for citizens and business through the interoperability platform and the unique service delivery portal www.e-albania.al, ensuring accessibility on a user- oriented platform.

The interoperability system interconnecting government systems that are present and/or envisioned in the Digital Agenda 2015-2020 action plan, also supports the efficiency of public service and resources management through e-government platforms. For example projects like ERDMS (Electronic Records and Document Management System), that is envisioned to be implemented in all line ministries and institutions by the end of 2017, will provide significant support in document exchange as well as speed up and improve policy development and coordination by line institutions.

Through the action plan of the Digital Agenda 2015-2020, improvements are foreseen also regarding the expansion of the government’s financial system, so that reporting state budget expenses that ensure transparency and public scrutiny over public finances has been enabled since 2013 by the Ministry of Finance which publishes state budget expenditures daily, and also as part of the OGP initiative where important steps regarding open government are foreseen, also in the action plan 2014-2016. The 2014 Law for Information and Public Consultation also ensures very good mechanisms for the accountability of state administration bodies, including liability and transparency, through enabling a transparency programme for each institution in the government, and enabling open data for public access.

The legislative framework for both e-government and open government in Albania is up to date as are the necessary technical systems and interoperability, and the gateway to citizen and business (www.e-albania.al) is being enriched with new e-services.

Other specific recommendations for Albania include the following:

• Implementation of the digital agenda, integration with the Digital Single Market process in

the region in line with the EU agenda.

• Interoperability in cross border services in line with EU practice.

• Implementation of OGP adoption of monitoring and measurement tools.

• Open data implementation and measurement of transparency and open data impact.

74

6.2.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina is performing less well than the regional average on both e-government and open government. The country does relatively well on transparency, but much less well on collaboration and poorly on participation, both of which need attention as here it is falling well behind the regional leaders.

The limited open government initiatives are, however, supporting an increase of government transparency and collaboration which is enhancing public service integrity and changing the perception of the government in the eyes of the citizens. These initiatives aim to improve access to information through a request to change the laws on free access to information. This is also supported by the fact that the Ministry of Justice represents Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Open Government Partnership. Service delivery is being improved through the launch of an internal e- signature system that is in use. Interoperability initiatives for establishing common standards are going ahead which will allow the government to provide better service delivery and establish technical conditions for the central e-government portal.

Overall, Bosnia and Herzegovina is on the right path, but due to the nature of governmental arrangements, there is no centralised effort made regarding some of the key future challenges. Very often central government establishes initiatives and promotes good practices, but obstacles are presented when these initiatives needs to be propagated to the lower administrative levels. Furthermore, many of these efforts are driven by the international community and the vibrant NGO sector. The government should take the initiative and the lead in many of these efforts and adopt new policies and good practices.

Other specific recommendations for Bosnia and Herzegovina include the following:

• The country needs to quickly solve the e-signature issue since this prevents further e-

service development. One of the recommended options is to deploy the e-signature developed for the Council of Ministries to other agencies and ministries and at least allow government to communicate electronically internally. The next stage would be to deploy e- signature to citizens and businesses as a centralized option using national e-ID or as mutually recognized e-signature provider between RS, FBIH, Brčko District BIH, etc.

• Since BIH is relatively small country and demand for e-services might be low, effort to

establish e-services among government agencies should be the primary focus and strategy.

• The Open Government Partnership should be embraced with more partners from both the

private and public sectors. An expanding partnership will help ensure that all bodies feel obligated to work according to open government principles.

75

• Public administration in BIH should establish one central place for citizen’s grievances and for feedback on administration services. Online and regular (mail and phone) channels of communication should be opened to citizens to provide feedback on government work and services.

6.2.3 Kosovo*

Kosovo* is the weakest of the six participants in both e-government and open government, but is of course a very late developer and has numerous political and institutional challenges not faced in the same way by the other participants. Kosovo* needs to address issues across the board although it has made a promising start in a number of areas such as collaboration and transparency.

Given that Kosovo* is at an early stage in implementing important public administration reforms, e- government and open government can significantly support the SIGMA recommendations for the strategic framework of public administration reform, policy development and co-ordination, public service and human resource management, accountability, service delivery and public financial management. Public institutions should open data related to public administration and other data regarding institutional processes. Government should also do this with CSOs through a PPP/PCP initiative. Initially the datasets regarding the public administration could be identified and then this data could be made open. This would contribute significantly to a monitoring and reporting system for the entire PAR area.

In the short term, Kosovo* should revise the law for access to public information, which should be in compliance with OGP policy, The new legislation should leverage the potential of open government data and make available the requested information in machine readable format. An open data portal should be created that would foster the accountability of public institutions. This should be done with the help of civil society through a possible PCP / PPP initiative. Public financial institutions, as well as all governmental institutions, should open their data regarding public administration, procurement, land property and other data in line with the OGP strategy. Kosovo* should also create a monitoring system based on open government data in order to track the work and the performance of public institutions.

In the medium term Kosovo* should include feedback loops in the open government data portal, and should also create an open reporting system for the implementation of the government programme, and especially its strategic plans for European Integration. This should be done by creating an inclusive co-ordination system with a whole-of-government approach. Kosovo* should include open government data in the Public Administration Reform process and should use open data for administrative reforms and for building effective public services.

Other specific recommendations for Kosovo* include the following:

76

• Public institutions should open up their data including the strategic documents and make them all available on the web and to seek public consultation. It is up to the public institutions to reach out to civil society and to individual citizens.

• Kosovo* needs support from donors and other actors such as multilateral organizations like

ReSPA, the EU and others. This support should be specifically in terms of capacity building and guidance but also in financing specific projects.

• Open government projects, such as an open data portal, could also be multilateral projects

involving many participants. The EU Instrument for Pre-accession (IPA) could be an important enabler. Cross border initiatives would be very beneficial.

6.2.4 Macedonia

Macedonia is performing less well than the regional average on e-government, having slipped somewhat behind the other countries on e-government in the past few years, but its earlier achievements in e-government have perhaps contributed to an exceptional performance as a leader on transparency and a good performance on participation in the context of open government.

E-government and open government are supporting the integration of existing services, for example by the integration of ENER with the e-session system, as well as building the national portal for e-services which could play a bigger supporting role in achieving many additional impacts, such as in the area of e-justice solutions, given that the required technology, the necessary platforms and adequate knowledge for e-solutions do exist, so it is the will and competence to deploy them that requires focus.

The more institutions practicing e-government, the more the preconditions for open government will be created. On the other hand, e-government will not fulfil its goals if measures are only taken on the supply side. Initiatives are also needed on the demand side, especially for breaking consumer resistance to using e-services and gaining their trust regarding security. It is also important not to focus exclusively on the technology itself, since it is only the enabler of e- government and is not the only important aspect that needs to be addressed.

A substantial number of important and key regulations have been adopted or aligned with the priorities of e-government and open government, a large number of vital e-services have been developed and launched, useful datasets have been publicly opened and attractive initiatives have been started. Further efforts are needed in applying and practicing a strategic approach in the context of strong central coordination in order to ensure the necessary synergy across all initiatives.

77

There is no available data on the measurement of allocated resources (costs) nor on benefits from the many activities that have been finished and those that are in progress. This suggests that there is need for evaluation methodologies and practices that can be used mainly for strategic purposes and the estimation of the financial costs.

Other specific recommendations for Macedonia include the following:

Institutional interventions and strategic measures recommended:

• Adopt a “strategy-first” approach in which where laws, bylaws and projects should only be be adopted and implemented if aligned with goals set in national strategies.

• The responsibility of MISA regarding building the information society should be redefined to

become a new working group or task force chaired by the Prime Minister or in the Prime Minister’s Office.

• A long-term strategy for the information society (or digital society) should be developed and

adopted to serve as an umbrella, covering inter alia the areas of e-government, open government and cloud computing. This strategy should define the general goals that need to be achieved in each area.

• Establish benchmarks on e-government, OGD and PPPs.

• Develop a methodology for institutional functional analysis from an e-government

perspective and its implementation.

• Develop plans for public participation on the institutional level.

Legislative interventions recommended:

• Develop a new regulation/law that describes e-services delivery, e-services tariffs (fees) and e-services quality measures (SLA).

• Revise the Law for Electronic Management, aiming to align it with the use of cloud services,

as well as adapt the procedure for the Certification of Information Systems and security criteria with the newly established environment (cloud).

Implementation measures recommended:

• Finalise the implementation of the Interoperability (IOP) Framework and the development of

Technical IOP standards.

• Develop an electronic citizens register and an address register as vital data for electronic

exchange in the majority of the administrative procedures.

78

• Finalise and publish data quality standards. 6.2.5 Montenegro

Montenegro is the clear regional leader in both e-government and open government, doing extremely well on participation and very well on collaboration compared with the average. However, the country should give more attention to transparency where it has only an average score and lags the rest of the region with the exception of Kosovo*.

It is clear that Montenegro has achieved a great deal in terms technical preconditions and legislative framework for e-government, which enables the government to offer a variety of traditional services online as well as to function much more efficiently and effectively within government itself. A lot has also been done to publish data (although in pdf format) from a variety of public bodies and to open avenues for civil society, businesses and citizens to participate in decision making. However, e-services for citizens and businesses and systems which have been introduced within public bodies to increase citizen participation are both underused. Hence, the first shift that needs to happen is to place the focus on increasing utilisation of what has already been created, undertake regular customer surveys in order to improve existing e-services and also expand their number based on what is really needed and commonly used. At the same time, it is necessary to make changes so that e-participation, reports by citizens and e-petition options for public participation and accountability are used much more. Another important development, prior to shifting to open government, is achieving full interoperability, full digitalisation and the online availability of basic public registries as only then will it be possible to see a genuine shift towards open government. Some of the first steps, such as regulating open government data usage and designing the open government portal, have already started. Given Montenegro's good track record in aligning the legislative framework but slowness in its implementation, the approach towards open government needs to be vigilant and thoughtful. Otherwise, there will again be good policies and technical preconditions in place that won't mean much to a regular citizen.

In relation to relevant SIGMA Key Requirements a number of issues need addressing:

• MIDT has to have a more proactive role (even though another Ministry is responsible for

PAR) in terms of making effective and efficient public administration through ICT. In the next strategy for PAR, e-government needs to be better integrated across different pillars and objectives of PAR.

• Developing the Government Service Bus (GSB) as the backbone to achieving

interoperability needs to be the priority, not only for MIDT but for the entire government.

79

• The Human Resource Management Authority (HMRA) needs to make sure to have accurate data on civil servants training. Also, the HRMA is planning on introducing a Moodle platform for data exchange between different HR Authorities within public bodies and this platform should also serve for planning and evaluating the training and development needs of public servants. ICT training is important as is the possibility for the on line education of public servants concerning e-services.

• E-participation as an option needs to be better promoted so that citizens, civil society and

business entities can actively participate in consultation process.

• Open government data needs to be regulated and MIDT should be involved (especially since the ministry already has a draft Law prepared). The capacity of the Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information should be upgraded to be able to successfully implement the upcoming changes to the FAI Law.

• The entire government, not only Ministry of Finance, should improve its publishing and

publicising of information on financial performance, and switching from paper based to e- based public procurement should take place. The e-procurement system currently only enables a search possibility for public procurements and reports by PPA for a certain period or about a certain public procurement.

Other specific recommendations for Montenegro include the following:

• Promote e-services with an emphasis placed on benefits for users, and develop new,

cheaper e-ID solutions in order to increase e-service take-up.

• Make continuous efforts to implement specific actions and projects within the public administration to create a non-paper based administration.

• Adapt processes and regulations within public bodies so that the law on e-government can

be fully implemented and the e-services of different public bodies can be readily available through the e-government portal.

• Implement e-services that are important for small and medium enterprises, raise the level of

accessibility of e-services for all users but especially for national minorities and marginalized groups, and enable users outside the country to use e-services.

• Enable online education for both citizens and civil servants about ICT and e-services.

6.2.6 Serbia

Serbia performs at about the average level on both e-government and open government, but does very well on transparency and participation, although it is being held seriously back by its lack of any real efforts regarding collaboration. The country has slipped somewhat in the past few years,

80

but has the know-how and resources to pick up again and become a regional leader. In addition to aligning better with the SIGMA and PAR requirements, one of the main recommendations to Serbia is the need for a single e-government organisation with horizontal jurisdiction over all government entities and all aspects of e-government (planning, implementation, operations). Monitoring and publishing online (in real time) the results of the policies should take place and their performance tracked with regard to the baseline (state before the policy was enacted). A set of online indicators (in near real time) should be published and monitored, showing the alignment between policies, financial costs and objectives as well as the quality and accessibility of public services. A unified or standardized document management and case management system should also be established for all governmental organisations that have knowledge management functions. Project performance measurement tools (simple sets of online forms that lead to the consolidated report) should be developed by the State Audit Institution and made available to the public. Knowledge management should be introduced and available to the government stakeholders regarding good managerial standards and human resource management practices.

The e-government portal should be updated so that it is fully citizen-oriented; enables collaboration with users, citizens or businesses on content and services creation; offers online transactional electronic services; and enables online transparent budget planning and spending for the public to fully participate. Multiple channels (secure online forms, mobile, voice, video, chat, etc.) should also be better developed. Similarly, a CRM based e-participation (Call/Contact Center) should be established that would include new channels to the clients other than Internet (mobile, voice, video, chat etc.), and a cloud-based Government e-payment service should be made available. A single national OGD portal should be established to enable the public to access and use OGD. As part of this, all registries should publish public API that would allow controlled and secure reuse of registry data without copying and duplication.

The Public Procurement Portal should also be updated so that users can create various reports, comparisons and analyses; can export data in OGD machine readable formats; and can have timely access to the CPR work and decisions. The PPO (Public Procurement Office) should develop and introduce standard sector-specialised technical specifications.

Other specific recommendations for Serbia include the following:

• Transfer and consolidate all basic e-government services and existing government data

centres to the Government cloud

• Establish a unified cloud-based document management and case management system with knowledge management functions for all government organizations

81

• Establish a cloud-based and CRM-based eParticipation (Call/Contact Center) that would include new channels to the clients other than Internet (mobile, voice, video, chat etc.)

• Update the e-government portal so that it is fully citizen-oriented; enables collaboration with

users, whether citizens or businesses, on content and services creation61; offers online transactional electronic services; enables online transparent budget planning and spending for the public to fully participate.

• Update the Public Procurement Portal to open procurement data so that users can create

various reports, comparisons and analyses; users can export data to OGD machine readable formats; users can have timely access to the CPR work and decisions.

• Establish controlled and secure reuse of registry data without copying and duplication for all

registries by securely publishing public API.

• Establish a single national OGD portal to enable the public to access and use OGD.

• Train government employees about their role in electronic service delivery; the higher level

officials about the multiple benefits of transitioning from the current model to cloud computing (change management); the medium and higher level officials about the multiple benefits of PPPs and PCPs; and users to adopt and use electronic services through campaigns and visibility.

• Organize the training of trainers (coaching) for ICT related PAR employees for the topics of

e-government, government cloud and open data so that they could perform further continuous training of PAR employees.

• Lobby higher politicians to adopt the benefits of the transition from the current model to

cloud computing, and of the benefits of the PPPs and PCPs, into their political agenda.

• Lobby companies to actively participate in the transition from the current model to cloud computing (creating new market niches); and to actively participate in the transition from the current IT operations model to PPP / PCP model of ‘IT as a Service’ (creating new market niches).

• The adoption of necessary legislation on the exchange of information within the public

administration and the law on e-government62.

• Promotion of the central e-government portal.

61 Feature is implemented and needs to be promoted and used. 62 Includes The Law on electronic archives

82

6.3 Recommendations regarding the role of external assistance

The recommendations in this chapter are derived from the National Experts and from the analysis presented in this report. Recommendations are grouped according to type and purpose.

6.3.1 Strategic and legislative support

• The development of long-term strategies for the information society and e-government.

(Macedonia)

• Strategies and strategic priorities for open government. (Macedonia)

• The creation of a strategic approach and planning for the creation of new registers and

improving existing ones, and for developing a map of responsible institutions for each register, supported by respective regulation. (Macedonia)

• Assistance with legal preparation, revision and/or drafting of the law on electronic

management for alignment with the IOP framework and the expected draft changes, and the law for data in electronic format and digital signatures. Alignment should be made as much as possible with EU standards and harmonisation requirements, such as regulation (EU) No 910/2014 on electronic Identification and trust Services (Macedonia).

6.3.2 Technical support

• Developing the structure of the register of registers and the software solution/application for

its management and administration. (Macedonia)

• Developing registers of administrative procedures/ services. (Macedonia)

• For the exchange of data, base registers and related tasks, including the adoption of legal

frameworks for administering registers, in the form of a 2-year technical assistance project for the period 2016-2017: for the establishment of the controlled and secure reuse of registry data without copying and duplication for all registries by securely publishing public API. (Serbia)

• Both expert and financial assistance is needed in the immediate future (2016) on

developing the interoperability and implementation of the government service bus. (Montenegro, Serbia)

• Increasing the number of interconnected Information Systems (IS) to the interoperability

system and developing more web based e-services. (Macedonia)

83

• The national portal as a single-point-of-contact with government needs developing, including the integration of existing e-services using the latest technological solutions and development of new services, following the ‘once-only principal’. (Macedonia)

• Assistance in developing new solutions for e-ID during 2016: user and password; user and

password with face-to-face identification; and models for non-media digital certification, for example a model which uses SMS. (Montenegro)

• Developing systems for e-IDs and national PKIs. (Macedonia)

• Support for transparency, trust and participation related tasks, in the form of one 1-year

technical assistance project to be finished during the year 2016: for establishing an open data portal and for the update of the e-government and public procurement portals. (Serbia)

• Developing software solutions (open source and regionally reusable) for recording fixed

assets in the public administration (2016-2017) (Montenegro)

• Single window for customs’ services (Albania)

• Feasibility study on hospital management systems for the Ministry of Health (Albania)

6.3.3 Support related to cloud services

• More assistance with developing cloud solutions: awareness of private cloud services, best

practices as a fast and secure enabler for more e-government services; best practices in using-cloud-computing for e-government, challenges and benefits (Albania)

• Support for the transition from legacy silo IT systems to cloud computing in e-government,

in the form of two 1-year technical assistance projects to be finished during 2016: for the introduction of the cloud-based government e-payment services; for the transfer of the basic e-government services to the government cloud; for the consolidation of the e- government basic services on the government cloud; and for consolidating existing government data centres into a single government cloud. (Serbia)

• Support for the establishment of cloud-based fully online fully transactional e-government

services, in the form of one 2-year technical assistance project for the period 2016-2017: for the establishment of the unified cloud-based document management and case management system with knowledge management functions for all governmental organisations; and for the establishment of the cloud-based and CRM-based eParticipation (call/contact center) that would include new channels to users other than Internet (mobile, voice, etc.). (Serbia)

84

6.3.4 Support related to open data

• Open data implementation and monitoring (Albania)

• Designing and developing an open data portal (2016-2017). (Montenegro)

• Support for OGD related tasks in the form of one 1-year technical assistance project to be

finished during the year 2016: for establishing procedures for OGD life-cycle management; and for the establishment of the single national OGD portal to enable the public to access and use OGD. (Serbia)

6.3.5 Organisational and capacity building

• Developing a platform for collaborative work in public institutions for more effective

knowledge management and e-learning (for example, team work on different projects and the exchange of information). The platform should function as a collaborative network of various groups of practitioners useful for most actors in policy making, in adopting strategy documents, standards, frameworks and programme development. Such a platform would be an excellent way to be connected and communicate on a specific theme or subject. The platform could also be part of a wider national knowledge management portal that would address e-government and open government (2016-2017) (Montenegro)

• Establishing a center for a safe internet, the primary purpose of which would be to increase

child security and safety on the internet in Montenegro. The centre should include different institutions, academia, NGOs, private sector and interested individuals in its work. Its prime activities should be implemented in schools, together with the National Computer Incident Response Team (CIRT) from MIDT and the Montenegrin Ombudsman. (Montenegro)

• Building institutional and long-term national capacity in the field of PPPs/PCPs, with the

objective of being able to describe services, not systems, to be procured; to be able to develop respective specifications being aware of the relevant technologies to be used; and to be skilled to manage the implementation of contracts. (Macedonia)

6.3.6 Financial support and special assistance

• The donor community so far participated in providing finance and expertise in implementing

pilot projects. Such an approach is good one that needs to be expanded into other areas of development. (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

• For most topics, Kosovo* requires external help and collaboration with multilateral

organizations and donors. This support should specifically be in terms of capacity building and guidance. (Kosovo*)

85

• Multiple twinning projects are an excellent way to provide EU best practices and experience to the government administration and to help the transition towards e-government and open government. (Serbia)

6.4 Recommendations for ReSPA’s role and future support

The recommendations in this chapter are derived the analysis presented in this report, from the National Experts and from the E-Government Working Group Meeting held on the ReSPA premises in Danilovgrad, 22 October 2015. Recommendations are grouped according to type and purpose.

6.4.1 Technical support

• Support for interoperability: training materials and courses; awareness raising; and the use

of regional examples. (Kosovo*, BiH)

• Support for e-services: training materials and courses; how to promote e-services; awareness raising; and the use of regional examples. (Kosovo*, BiH))

• Workshops on EIF, its importance and value, and how it can be implemented in national

regulations. (Macedonia)

• Organising and conducting training for IT personnel in institutions on W3C standards, and establishing rules for imposing W3C standards as a part of technical requirements when building web locations for governmental sites or portals. (Macedonia)

• Sharing ICT infrastructure and other resources across government, not only cloud server

capacity. (Macedonia)

• Expert assistance, training and/or know-how exchanges in the region for improving e-ID systems and mechanisms. (Montenegro, BiH)

• Expert assistance, training and/or know-how exchanges in the region for developing m-

government, i.e. e-government via mobile devices. (Montenegro)

• Support for the transition from legacy silo IT systems to cloud computing in e-government and IT as a service model. (Serbia)

• Training and assistance in ICT procurement and contracting (Kosovo*).

6.4.2 Support related to cloud services

Capacity building workshops and support materials on:

86

• Private cloud services, best practices as a fast and secure enabler for more e-government services. (Albania)

• Best practices for using cloud computing for e-government challenges and benefits.

(Albania)

• Support for cloud computing: training materials and courses; awareness raising; and the use of regional examples. (Kosovo*)

• Support in creating national governmental contract templates including terms and

conditions, and improved SLA for cloud computing services. This should be based on the findings of an analysis for evaluating the justification for building a government-cloud, an estimation of the costs for its establishment, assessing possible benefits and savings, evaluating the level of flexibility to develop and deliver cloud-based e-services, and undertaking risk assessments. (Macedonia)

• Creating and delivering training programme on cloud computing, covering its definition,

components, types and categories of cloud services, benefits and risks, billing models and security. For the wider audience, training materials and e-courses should be produced. (Macedonia)

6.4.3 Support related to open data

Capacity building workshops and support materials on;

• The adoption of guidelines for implementing OGP/open data/measurement of transparency.

(Albania, BiH)

• Open data implementation and monitoring OGD best practices. (Albania)

• Support for open government data and transparency: training materials and courses;

awareness raising; and the use of regional examples. (Kosovo*, BiH)

• Developing standards for open data at the regional level and their wider promotion, which

will have positive effects in broadening the possibilities for the development of valuable and useful applications. (Macedonia)

• Developing national methodologies for the evaluation of e-government and open data

projects, their deliveries, their direct outcomes, impact on citizens and society, the benefits they bring to institutions and the level of W3C compliance, to be developed with draft rules of conduct for regular application. (Macedonia)

• Creating and conducting training programme with the objective to understand what open

data means, what are the open data formats and the best formats for releasing data, legal

87

permission and constraints for publishing data (with the Common Creative licences) and data quality. (Macedonia)

• Developing promotional plans for broad awareness of OGD benefits and accepting the

concepts and principles of OGD. (Macedonia)

• Support for the establishment of the guidelines, procedures and legislation for OGD life- cycle management and open data readiness for example based on the World Bank framework. (Serbia)

6.4.4 Organisational and capacity building

• ReSPA should help in initiating better coordination between administrative units in the

country that are often the biggest obstacle to cooperation. Such coordination can be supported by providing regular benchmarking and metrics for measuring e-government, conferences that would include the NGO sector, professionals and government, providing experts in key areas, etc. (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

• Support for the establishment of the single e-government organisation with horizontal

jurisdiction over all governmental organisations and all aspects of e-government through guidelines, recommendations and lobbying. (Serbia)

• Support for training and awareness raising: government employees about their role in

electronic service delivery (‘fear of dismissal’ management); higher level officials about multiple benefits of transitioning from the current model to cloud computing (change management); medium and higher level officials about the multiple benefits of PPPs and PCPs; and users to adopt and use electronic services (campaigns and visibility). (Serbia)

• Support for lobbying politicians and decision-makers about the benefits: of the transition

from the current model to cloud computing into their political agenda; and of the PPPs and PCPs into their political agenda and the cultural issues associated with this. (Serbia)

• Support for institutional capacity building in change management, monitoring, evaluation

and oversight of PPPs/PCPs, cloud computing and IT as a service for e-government and/or open government, through comparative and feasibility studies and pilot projects. (Serbia)

• Support for developing national privacy impact assessment and guidelines for introducing

terms of use and privacy policies as an integral part of managing e-government projects. (Macedonia)

• Support for developing PPPs PCPs: joint workshops and regional examples of what works

and what doesn’t work in the Western Balkan countries; change management; and monitoring and evaluation. (Kosovo*)

88

• Support in determining criteria for selecting and developing PPP/PCP solutions that are relevant to the contextual situation in the country. (Macedonia)

• Support in facilitating the definition of business models when contracting economic

providers for e-government through PPPs/PCPs, specifically focusing on service tariff regulation, data protection, protection of the customer’s rights, customer relationship management and response time, etc. (Macedonia)

• Even though different countries in the region are in different stages when it comes to Open

Government Partnership implementation with PPPs/PCPs, ReSPA should consider producing a best-practices handbook when it comes to drafting and implementing OGP action plans. (Montenegro)

• Support in developing methodologies and procedures for an ‘administrative guillotine’ for

the purposes of their optimisation, revision for improvement, abolishment, or in some cases introduction of new ones. (Macedonia)

• Developing and conducting training programme for public participation, aiming to facilitate

institutions in identifying ways and channels for the best use of public participation and preparation of internal plans. (Macedonia)

• Training programme on organisational change management for the top or high

management. (Macedonia)

• A plan for multichannel communication with the citizens should be developed and deployed, aiming to raise understanding of e-government. (Macedonia)

• Activities to help promote e-government portals to public authorities, public institutions, as

well as to the end users of e-services, and to educate civil servants together with ReSPA and the Human Resource Management Authority. (Montenegro)

• All round capacity building support is required for most topics dealt with in this survey.

(Albania) 6.4.5 Methods for delivering the recommendations

The above recommendations can be delivered and realised using a variety of methods, and especially:

• Workshops, training, train the trainers, training networks, summer/seasonal schools, in-

country training, mobility programmes and learning materials

• Regional Centre of Excellence Network as a laboratory for innovation and knowledge transfer.

89

• Greater focus on sub-national entities, such as cities, municipalities and rural areas, given that most e-government is experienced by citizens and businesses in the localities where they reside.

• ‘Boot-camps’ tailored to specific groups (such as politicians, high level administrators,

middle managers, etc.) A ‘boot-camp’ is a one (maximum two) day very intensive interactive training event designed to explain the fundamental principles of the subject with, ideally, hands-on examples and activities to help participants practice the concepts they learn. For example, focus could be on how to recognize ‘quick-wins’ and achieve them, how to examine costs and benefits and the business case, data security and protection, ICT used for corruption, etc. Led by professionals, the ‘boot-camp’ will result in a certificate of successful completion.

• Exchanges and visits based on good practices (perhaps also ‘worst’ practices which might

provide greater learning potential) and regional examples; also with EU countries (for example, the PPP days in Brussels) and with specific countries which have made good progress in particular areas, such as Georgia and Azerbaijan, to provide greater focus and more specialization.

• ReSPA focused support to individual countries depending on a negotiated programme,

given that each has quite specific requirements.

• Regional PA Excellence Awards.

• Regional cooperation and direct partnering.

• Regional comparative studies-

• Greater use of webinars, Skype-for-Business, conference and video calls if technically

robust. 6.4.6 General recommendations

• Early in 2016, align the work of the E-Government Expert Working Group with the

European E-Government Action Plan due to be agreed by Member States, supported by the European Commission, for the period 2016-2010 and which will itself be aligned with the Europe 2020 Strategy. Plans at time of writing include63:

o Co-creation and collaboration

o Public-Private Partnerships (PPPS)

63 https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/opengov/news/open-data-and-collaborative-service-production-2-priorities-next- eu-egovernme

90

o Public-Civil-Partnerships (PCPs) also informal and with citizens, interest groups, localities, etc.)

o Re-usable modular public services

o Generic building blocks

o Digital Service Infrastructures (DSFs)

• Continue close collaboration with ReSPA’s Expert Working Groups on Public Private

Partnerships, One-Stop-Shop, Ethics and Integrity, as well as other relevant activities including Public Administration Reform.

CIP – Каталогизација у публикацији Национална библиотека Црне Горе, Цетињe ISBN 978-9940-37-011-4 COBISS.CG-ID 31244304